Someone should ask David Brooks why it's appropriate for the state to impose by force of law a standard of care different from the prevailing standard of care overwhelmingly agreed upon by medical professionals in the field. Someone should ask him why a few dissenters (and we all know they have a political, social and cultural axe to grind rather than a medical one) get to have the state impose by force a different standard of care. He professes to be a "conservative" and an empiricist? Is that an approach that is consistent with what he claims to be? Why do primarily white male politicians claiming some twisted religious bent - the great majority of whom have no medical training at all - get to impose by state action a standard of care different from what the medical profession has agreed upon.
"the Review casts doubt on medical care that is much more readily and more frequently afforded to cisgender youth—not because the treatments themselves are significantly changed by the sex of the patient but because of the political boundaries transgender youth defy"
This is something that has been baffling me about the gender affirming care "debate": the assumption that trans bodies are so vastly different than cis bodies that we cannot possibly know what will happen if they take bioidentical hormones without running special dedicated large-scale long-term double blind randomized controlled trials. There seems to be a belief that the presence of testes makes the effects of estrogen unpredictable---and vice versa for trans boys---despite there being natural variations in human genetics that cause these exact situations to occur without any medical intervention. But somehow a trans girl is so radically different from a cis girl with hypogonadism or androgen insensitivity syndrome that we cannot know whether the exact same drugs will have a similar effect on her body (and mind---another unique bar trans people have to vault over every time without fail).
As the author of this article points out: the important difference between cis and trans people being prescribed hormones is the politics of the people who object to other people having agency and autonomy over their own bodies.
It’s not about the medicine, and never has been. Delegitimising decades of medical practice as ‘experimental’ is just an easy way to sell the stripping of human rights to other people also unaffected by this dehumanisation.
And it prepares the majority for further dehumanisation of minorities, for a continued speedrun of the 1930s.
Strangely enough, I did just Google Dr. Baxendale, and, far from the first reference being critical, it was her article on Wikipedia,second being her books on memory and epilepsy. But a few results down, I found the Xitter feed of Benjamin Ryan, who seems to be overjoyed at the Cass recommendations and how they'll mean "cautious" gender treatment in Britain, unlike the "liberal" policies in the US where doctors apparently wait on the sidewalk for children to abduct and transition. Also, the whining about "bullying" sounds particularly insensitive after Nex Benedict's passing, as if Brooks and Baxendale and their side were the ones ACTUALLY suffering.
They are suffering insomuch as they’re still having to write these tedious and odious articles comparing individual people with wealthy organisations - equating a single human who respects human rights with organisations designed to flay those rights until the market ignores them.
Humans are irrelevant to these ideologues unless adequately wealthy, and possessed of the Right attitude to moneyed authority.
64,000 or 40,000 the caption for one of the photos is incongruent with your writing. Either way it should be a shocking number to those who insist that they've never seen or met a trans person.
Pamela Paul was too busy last week arguing for riot cops to storm Columbia so she needed Brooks to do her usual stuff
Someone should ask David Brooks why it's appropriate for the state to impose by force of law a standard of care different from the prevailing standard of care overwhelmingly agreed upon by medical professionals in the field. Someone should ask him why a few dissenters (and we all know they have a political, social and cultural axe to grind rather than a medical one) get to have the state impose by force a different standard of care. He professes to be a "conservative" and an empiricist? Is that an approach that is consistent with what he claims to be? Why do primarily white male politicians claiming some twisted religious bent - the great majority of whom have no medical training at all - get to impose by state action a standard of care different from what the medical profession has agreed upon.
"the Review casts doubt on medical care that is much more readily and more frequently afforded to cisgender youth—not because the treatments themselves are significantly changed by the sex of the patient but because of the political boundaries transgender youth defy"
This is something that has been baffling me about the gender affirming care "debate": the assumption that trans bodies are so vastly different than cis bodies that we cannot possibly know what will happen if they take bioidentical hormones without running special dedicated large-scale long-term double blind randomized controlled trials. There seems to be a belief that the presence of testes makes the effects of estrogen unpredictable---and vice versa for trans boys---despite there being natural variations in human genetics that cause these exact situations to occur without any medical intervention. But somehow a trans girl is so radically different from a cis girl with hypogonadism or androgen insensitivity syndrome that we cannot know whether the exact same drugs will have a similar effect on her body (and mind---another unique bar trans people have to vault over every time without fail).
As the author of this article points out: the important difference between cis and trans people being prescribed hormones is the politics of the people who object to other people having agency and autonomy over their own bodies.
It’s not about the medicine, and never has been. Delegitimising decades of medical practice as ‘experimental’ is just an easy way to sell the stripping of human rights to other people also unaffected by this dehumanisation.
And it prepares the majority for further dehumanisation of minorities, for a continued speedrun of the 1930s.
Strangely enough, I did just Google Dr. Baxendale, and, far from the first reference being critical, it was her article on Wikipedia,second being her books on memory and epilepsy. But a few results down, I found the Xitter feed of Benjamin Ryan, who seems to be overjoyed at the Cass recommendations and how they'll mean "cautious" gender treatment in Britain, unlike the "liberal" policies in the US where doctors apparently wait on the sidewalk for children to abduct and transition. Also, the whining about "bullying" sounds particularly insensitive after Nex Benedict's passing, as if Brooks and Baxendale and their side were the ones ACTUALLY suffering.
They are suffering insomuch as they’re still having to write these tedious and odious articles comparing individual people with wealthy organisations - equating a single human who respects human rights with organisations designed to flay those rights until the market ignores them.
Humans are irrelevant to these ideologues unless adequately wealthy, and possessed of the Right attitude to moneyed authority.
64,000 or 40,000 the caption for one of the photos is incongruent with your writing. Either way it should be a shocking number to those who insist that they've never seen or met a trans person.