Same to you.

interesting turn of events, i stated i'd acknowledge and condemn legislation. but instead i will acknowledge and not condemn these changes.

https://segm.org/England-ends-gender-affirming-care#:~:text=The%20NHS%20has%20eliminated%20the,care%20in%20children's%20hospital%20settings.

i do not however see anything relating to adults, so if you have those sources i can read and let you know if they are also a good idea.

i don't do a weekly catch up on this topic because it's largely a non-issue, JK rowling is still a non-causal factor she's just a large mouthpiece, and the care protocols for transgender youth have been heading for a pendulum correction for a while. it was never really good medicine, it was an attempt to curb suicide stats of mentally ill people while also refusing to call the state their in mental illness because it may inflate suicide stats.

If you support those changes I don't think you're actually a centrist at all lol. The affirmative care model is based on evidence to improve outcomes for children, and it seems you're just against evidence based medical practice if it makes you feel icky.

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Apr 17 2023 08:46am

What is a woman ?

, , , ,

Gazon Maudit

1. Eliminates the “gender clinic” model of care and does away with “affirmation”
mostly indifferent, although i can see these returning with more research

2. Classifies social gender transition as an active intervention eligible for informed consent
-Good!

3. Establishes psychotherapy and psychoeducation as the first and primary line of treatment
-Good with good on top!

4. Sharply curbs medical interventions and confines puberty blockers to research-only settings
-this will be the first rolled back item, and im fine with that overall

5. Establishes new research protocols
-arguably the best part

6. Reinstates the importance of “biological sex”
-as we should in a medical field

7. Reaffirms the preeminence of the DSM-5 diagnosis of “gender dysphoria” for treatment decisions
-never should have gone away

8. Clarifies the meaning of “multidisciplinary teams” as consisting of a wide range of clinicians with relevant expertise, rather than only “gender dysphoria” specialists
-good! never should have been as pidgeon holed as it was

9. Establishes primary outcome measures of “distress” and “social functioning”
-oh no, scary mean language

10. Asserts that those who choose to bypass the newly-established protocol will not be supported by the NHS
-good, leaves private options open



i think you read a tweet from someone who read the legislation, they said it was basically holocaust levels of murder and death, then accused me of just repeating conservative viewpoints. meanwhile i havent even listened to conservative media for years no (dropped shapiro, crowder, etc as entertainment listening) and i dont follow any on social media. i dont even have a twitter account or app on my phone.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Apr 17 2023 08:52am

Being a conservative does not mean you listen to conservative media. It means your positions line up with conservative talking points, which tend to disseminate far easier than liberal or leftist talking points. Need I remind you that Sinclaire is ridiculously conservative and is in more homes than every cable news outlet combined by like an order of magnitude? By all accounts, you have very little way to know if what you are listening counts as conservative media.


As for the points in the article you linked, the overwhelming majority of the good things were already existant. This is basically hiding bad things by saying they're now doing a bunch of good things they were already doing before.

1. Affirmative care is the base model for all psychological encounters. If somebody walks in with depression nobody says "I don't think you have depression, let's see if you have autism". They are carving out a specific exception here for political reasons, not evidence based reasons.
2. Social transition is not an active medical intervention and never has been. This point is wholly ridiculous. You do not need a psychologist, surgeon, or medication to socially transition. You can literally do that at any time and it is not a medical intervention.
3. Psychotherapy and psychoeducation has ALWAYS been the model. This is not something established by this legislation. They're putting it here to launder good sounding things into the legislation that were already present.
4. The fact that puberty blockers, which are safe and well studied, are rolled back at all defeats your entire point. JKR is fundamentally in favor of this, and again is the subject of the conversation.
5. Another thing that was already happening, except in this case the "new research protocols" either already existed or are counter to well substantiated research. Again, a combination of laundering already existing good things to make it seem better and actively harmful activity.
6. Biological sex is irrelevant to gender based care. Gender is different from sex. This is a ridiculous point that is only put here to appeal to the masses.
7. The DSM-5 diagnosis did not ever go away. Notice it says "reaffirms", not "reinstates". It's something that was already there, and used by researchers. This is just laundering more good sounding things to hide the bad.
8. See 7. This never went away. Multidisciplinary teams are standard in medicine.
9. Also never went away. distress and social functioning were always the primary measures of treatment for ALL psychological problems.
10. Bad. It means you don't get public medical care if you don't respond to these new POLITICALLY MOTIVATED protocols.


Literally everything new in the legislation is bad, and everything good already existed. The reason is obvious. The protocols are politically motivated, and so anything new is going to be counter to the evidence because the protocols that were already in place were made based on the best available evidence.

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Apr 17 2023 09:04am

what i listen to on a daily basis:

-comedy podcasts
-gardening tutorials
-livestock tutorials
-2000s era rock/rap

i dont watch the news, listen to political anything (not even JRE), and i dont read anything on news sites. ive even cured my yahoo news hate-reading addiction. i listened to an episode of the JKR podcast and threw up in my mouth at how openly biased it was and how transparent they were in setting her up as a hero/victim, and havent relistened to anything. i just stumble into pard and if a topic's pushback to my uninformed opinion causes me to do research i do it.

there are 2 topics in transgender issues that i even say i care enough about to form a real opinion.

1.) M2F people should never be allowed in female sports. it happens but is rare, should be left up to sports organizations and no legislation is needed.

2.) gender reassignment surgery should never be done on a person under 18 years old, for any reason, ever. this is exceedingly rare bordering on nonexistent. no need for legislation.


i have my doubts about puberty blockers, gender specialists and clinics, research scrutiny, etc. but overall i dont care, i think the new protocols are better than what we had before, mostly because they're a slight step back in a field that was moving far too fast. checks to the system are always good, and increased scrutiny makes for good science. if worse outcomes arise and can be proven by data then we'll see measures revert. keeping what works ditching what doesnt. of course "works" is a hard thing to apply to a group with insanely high suicide rates and insanely negative social scores among peers. these are a band aid on an open wound, both the old and new. you can put one of those kids in a clinic with 30 other trans kids, all trans staff, offer them 10 trans councilors and all the puberty blockers and hormones they can handle and you'll still see 40%+ attempt suicide once they leave and join the open world.

You're speaking out of both sides of your mouth here. You simultaneously don't care and don't know that much, but also think you have a good reason to think the field was moving too fast. You also want what's best for children, but go against the evidence and the practitioners who's job it is to improve outcomes based on evidence.

These are not checks on the system moving too fast. These are politically motivated attacks on a minority group at the expense of the evidence that JKR is actively helping with.

If you really value the lives of children you will leave it to the experts who's job it is to understand the material and apply it based on outcomes.

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Apr 17 2023 09:24am

Don't say women - This is how it's done these days



This post was edited by Djunior on Apr 17 2023 09:30am