Strengths and weaknesses of different models are helpful to know. And the model could be important later for legal reasons.
6,852 karma · joined July 15, 2015
The trial protocol said diagnosed with gender incongruence. And explained this.[1] Not questioning their gender.
[1] https://www.kcl.ac.uk/ioppn/assets/pathways/trial/pathways-t...
The context was gender dysphoria treatment. Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize.[1]
> This notion of using these drugs to disrupt healthy and physiologically normal puberty, was not even a little part of their purpose.
Gender dysphoric puberty has unhealthy effects.
> gender dysphoria often resolves itself as the process of puberty and natural maturation unfolds
I never saw this claim supported by studies which did not include children who did not meet gender dysphoria criteria. And those studies found persistence predictors when they looked. Meeting gender dysphoria criteria for example.
Puberty blockers are reversible generally. Suicide is not.
Many people believe adults should be denied assisted suicide.
Your point was what?
To control access is gate keeping.
Puberty blockers' effects are reversible generally. Puberty's effects are not.
Gender affirming care regret rates are very low.
> I know that might be seen as unfair to a lot of people, but given the persistence with which gender affirmation is being pushed, I feel that cases like me are simply considered collateral damage.
Access to gender affirming care is pushed persistently because denial of gender affirming care was and is pushed persistently. And the benefits are significant. And regret rates are very low.
Do you understand that no regretted treatment would require no treatment? What ratio of regretted treatment and regretted non treatment would you consider fair?
The effects of puberty blockers can be reversed much more than the effects of puberty.
> People don’t care if the building is gorgeous; they will still oppose it simply because they hate new homes in their neighborhood.
I read enough of the article to know what you claimed they claimed was not what they claimed. The 2nd paragraph said Ugliness is probably not a major driver of opposition to development by local people. But there is strong circumstantial evidence that ugliness is sometimes a major driver of opposition among people who live nowhere near the development in question.
Many buildings are not ugly and not gorgeous.
> Aside: the reasons new buildings are bland is because no two people agree on what is ‘beautiful’; second, delays due to zoning and endless regulations already make it difficult for a project to pencil even before spending much money on the facade.
New buildings are bland or ugly because this costs less. Everyone's lists of beautiful buildings would differ by 1 at least could be true but is not relevant. It is impossible to design a building most people would not say is ugly would be relevant but is not true.
Almost certainly guarantees was very false. The review said The absolute risk of dying by suicide in offspring of suicide decedents ranged from 0.23 to 2.9% (mean 0.87%; median 0.56%) in the included cohort studies.
Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.[1] Unless the facehugger has just laid an egg in your gut, suicide is never rational was not thoughtful and substantive.
No. It always tells you what will make you happiest. "Better for you if you take me off."
[1] https://github.com/keepassxreboot/keepassxc/issues/10407#iss...
KeepassXC was threatened to be blocked.[1]
[1] https://github.com/keepassxreboot/keepassxc/issues/10407#iss...