There is no hard science behind HRT to treat gender identity because there can't be. Biology can be understood as a closed system, psychiatry cannot. Whether its Freud or the DSM-5 or Doctor Phil, there is no hard rational objectivity, but there sure is a hell of a lot of dogma. Doctors treating a physical disease can tell you what biological process causes it, what procedure cures it, and why. Problems can be as identifiable and discrete as a mechanic fixing an engine. And its really quite pointless for me to elaborate on that metaphor because I'm pretty sure you already understand the difference between hard science and soft science so you're just bullshitting.

It's actually the opposite dude. I understand the reasons why looking at it the way you do is flawed and leads to bad medicine

Biology is not a closed system, our research methods don't treat it as such (I'm currently doing cancer research and we don't treat it that way, just FYI. That's why we use lots of different models because closed systems don't produce good results), and non-hard outcomes can be quantified and measured against. You're trying to apply hard and fast lines where none exist.

If we applied your way of thinking then mental illness would not exist. In fact, if you take your thinking to its logical conclusion then a lot of illnesses that definitely exist wouldn't be classified either.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Feb 27 2020 10:04pm

Psychiatry is a medical speciality, a psychiatrist is like a cardiologist except they treat diseases of the brain. Both are medical doctors, go to medical school, take boards, take the same classes together until specialization.

Dr.. Phil is a reality TV show star and probably has your opinion on this topic. He isn't a practicing psychologist, which isn't a medical doctor, he has a PhD probably and he is not licensed to practice psychology in any state. And he doesn't practice therapy, psychology, or do treatment of any sort.

You are really ranting, irrationally. You actually have no idea what you're talking about or the difference between highly skilled and separate disciplines.

This post was edited by Skinned on Feb 27 2020 10:06pm

goom triggering the sheltered privileged lefties again

You realize that there's a point where puberty blockers are discontinued, and that it's well before 20?

Because you don't have these conversations with actual information. So much of the dialogue here isn't with regards to the actual topic, it's instead revolving around correcting your lack of understanding in the first place. Once either you or some other anti-trans poster who has actually read up on this topic posts, then we'll be able to get into the core of the debate.

If we applied my way of thinking than we wouldn't have chemically castrated Alan Turing or fried the brains of Rosemary Kennedy.
Everything the DSM-5 says about treating Gender Dysphoria and gender identity could turn out to be completely, utterly wrong, and there would be no way to tell because the outcomes are subjective, the studies incapable, the underlying mechanics unknowable. Attempts to measure non-hard outcomes are notorious subject to bias and interpretation, and especially in such limited datasets as childhood development you can't ethically or practically construct double-blind, repeatable experiments. All the dogmatic views could turn out to be right, but the difference isn't testable to the point of reasonable proof. That that objectivity is the difference of hard sciences. Biology is a closed system, to reasonable and useful application. When we classify someone as biologically male or female, it doesn't bother that designation if a tiny insignificant fraction of people are intersex without gender identifying characteristics and chromosomes. An oncologist can test for whether a cancer is in remission, they can examine cells under a microscope to see if they're ugly enough to be stage 4. The procedures are objective, repeatable, using understood mechanisms of action. Soft sciences are rife with dogma, grand claims by people unable to recognize their fallibility because the upside of being unable to be proven right is that you can't be proven wrong. And when I see how absurdly compromised the psychiatric profession is with political and agenda driven actors who won't tolerate any skeptics, I can't give even an ounce of credibility to the claims from authority they make without hard evidence.

I see lots of hyperbolic claims without evidence or context of current treatment paradigms. You're ranting while people like Handcuffs are posting peer reviewed medical guidelines. It doesn't take long to see who has facts and logic on their side in these conversations.

"If we applied my way of thinking we wouldn't have toasted these people's brains", but we also wouldn't have invented antidepressants, anti-psychotics, etc. etc.

Oh well. Gonna go to bed. It's clear you aren't actually listening.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Feb 27 2020 10:43pm

Oh I thought you were going to list a counterexample of something good we would have missed out on

So edgy

stop the pills for a night and stay awake