I guess you got to be you. I can tell you actually watch the video. She’s right, you’re not.
You know who’s medically trained?
HILLARY FUCKING CASS, that’s who!
I don’t need an excuse for believing an experienced and impartial professional who’s spent years looking into this issue. I get that you don’t believe her. Fine. But believing impartial medical experts is a completely reasonable and normal thing to do
Grinning coprophages. Grinning. With a smile.
Cass may be medically trained (she is) but is she impartial? That is under question. Also, the Cass report is just one report/study/paper, it is not the only one out there, nor is she the only medically trained person studying it.
Makes as much sense as determining vaccines are the cause of autism because Andrew Wakefield published a study determining that because, you know, Wakefield was medically trained. Except it turned out not only was he wrong, but he faked data, was discredited, and had his medical license revoked permanently.
So… when most people who are medically trained who work in the field of caring for individuals for whom gender affirming care might be relevant say one thing and “Hillary fucking Cass” says something different I really have to question if the love shown to Cass is because she’s right or because she’s right wing and her position supports a particular ideology.
Wakefield was the first counter example that came to my mind too.
If only we had some way to examine scientific claims and determine their reliability and come to some agreement on what the current best understanding is.
Maybe we could call it Peer Review and Consensus.
I’m going to talk to that person the same way I would talk to an antivaxer or a young earth creationist.
Supporting gender-affirming care is an extremely mainstream position. I don’t think I’ve ever met anyone who opposes it, from either side of the political aisle. The closest you’ll find to that is Republicans who get all frothed up because they think that Democrats oppose gender-affirming care.
Except when it’s gender-affirming care for trans people. For some reason, a lot of people think that what’s universally accepted as appropriate for cis people is horrible when it’s for trans people.
Very well. I’m certainly not an expert in the field, so when I want to learn I look those people who know more than I do. As far as I can tell, the APA (American Association of Psychological Association) believes that these treatments helps trans and nonbinary people.
And look at all the success Buttigieg has had convincing Republicans because of it …
Ummmm, I’m having trouble recounting all of those Republicans swayed by his intelligent, calm, and likeable exterior.
This isn’t a slam on him (or you). Just pointing out the polarization of the Republican party has done away with even a modicum of bi-partisanship or rationality based decision making.
FAFO again is underway for this criminal.
One thing I don’t get - the article mentions that intended recipients of e-mails from federal inmates have to be notified beforehand and agree to receive them. Yet this guy was able to (allegedly) viciously harass his victim via e-mails?
There isn’t one. Most ‘centrists’ are people who aren’t very interested in or informed about politics. They have opinions that don’t fit the party lines because there’s nothing inherent in tax policy, gender affirming care, or the war in Ukraine that says a person’s opinion on one ought to predict their opinion on the others. The only reason they do is tribalism. These are the people who voted for Trump because of the price of eggs, and because “Kamala is for they/them, President Trump is for you” - ie the Dems were seen as more interested in helping small minorities than in dealing with bread-and-butter issues for the majority.
If you’re asking what is the median position of the American public, it’s somewhere to the right of mine. Since accusing people of being ignorant and/or evil often causes offence, and rarely makes them more likely to vote for the policies and party you support, Dopers should probably avoid discussing the subject with anyone who doesn’t already agree with them.
This is a disingenuous argument, similarly to ‘state’s rights’. The majority position is that medical treatments should be evidence based and do more good than harm to those who use them. No one actually believes that doctors should be able to administer unevidenced treatments with no oversight; they disagree on the merits of this particular treatment. If you don’t believe me, ask yourself whether doctors should be allowed to give conversion therapy to gay people.
Lmao. 
Does the current HHS secretary know about this?
Lol, fair point.
You mean, a treatment that is not only unevidenced, but has mountains of evidence against it, and for which there isn’t even any sort of oversight structure? I’m not sure what relationship that’s supposed to have to something that’s strongly evidenced and widely accepted within the medical community.
There was a previous thread where @Aspidistra posted her views on transgender which contains much more information about her views and her trans child. Can we take this side discussion over to there?
So what we have here now is a case of duelling experts. I’m confident that the quality and independence of the research in the systematic review is higher than that of a general psychiatric association whose membership combines those who aren’t involved with the subject (and therefore can’t be expected to know a huge amount more than the average person) and those who make money out of it (who are not impartial).
ETA: composed before I saw the mod note.
The point is, you do feel entitled to interfere with the medical treatment of strangers. You just don’t think there is a good reason to in the case of gender affirming care. Which is fine, but general-you should defend that treatment on its merits rather than a principle you don’t actually believe.
Anyway, before getting distracted by poor arguments, I had intended to say conservatives on Twitter are angry about Newsom’s podcast, and some want to cancel any right-wing personality who helps him by going on it. Others think it’s good because it’s important to bridge the divide and have more moderate candidates for president. A couple said if Newsom keeps listening to conservatives, he will realise they are right and change his views for real.
I don’t know who’s right, but I found it amusing seeing the mirror-reverse claims here.
No, I don’t. “Conversion therapy” isn’t medical treatment; it’s torture. I feel entitled to interfere with the torture of strangers.
Now, that, that is true. But the public has been intensely and prolongedly propagandized that yes it ought to be so.
Opinions aren’t things you believe, they’re flags you wave to show what side you’re on.