Kids' gender clinic whistleblower "regretful patients begged to 'have body parts put back on'"

More qualified for what? What did she say that she was unqualified to say?

 

Sorry, you're wrong.

NOWHERE in the discussion has 'all medical care' come up. YOU twisted it to that so you could attempt a comeback.

Stop doing this. Stop pretending people said things they didn't just so you can have a response.

 

Please read the thread.

 

Dr Phil??? Is he still around???

Since when did anyone take anything he said seriously???

 

Ehhh, seems to me a certain ex-president made that a pretty mainstream thing to do for his base about 8 years ago too. That's why there's still a sizeable chunk of them who don't think Donald Trump has ever done anything wrong.

 

He didn't say anything, his guest did based on her first hand experience. Helps to read instead of attempting to derail a thread.

 

HUH….I addressed it all, and you cant refute it so you post this drivel….

 

Still won't provide the supposed proof? Won't actually source the article that provided proof that the claims were a lie?

But see, all these games are just a distraction and deflection because you don't actually want to discuss the issue.

Instead, you post bias sources that don't actually refute anything, and then you make false accusations and play games because you political ideologies are so piss poor, you know they are indefensible.

What a joke.

 

NONE of those people, in the articles you're sourced, refute the claims made in the OP which is what you claimed.

This really isn't conlmplicated. It really isn't.

The OP provides information from a worker at a gender affirming care clinic that presents some serious allegations and concerns, but your so partisan and so entrenched ulin your woke agenda, you deflect from the discussion about these issues by presenting sources from bias websites that don't actually refute the claims either.

Your entire effort in this thread (and usually on this forum) is to attempt to discredit anybody or any source that doesn't fall lockstep with your beliefs... but you don't actually defend them or debate then.

It's a seriously weak approach and lacking any form of logic.

If your beliefs are justified and reasonable, you'd me able to actually defend then with logic.

But you can't.

 

Wait wait wait.

You claimed that I said that I said that I wouldn't believe anything from the sources you provided.

Either provide my quote that said that, or admit you made it up.

 

Ahh.. more character misrepresentation and red herring fallacies.

It's all you got.

 

Well, in his defense, there was overwhelming proof that the media represented everything he did in a negative light from a very biased perspective including outright lies about him.

Even still, simply saying "I don't like your source" as a means to prove a claim inaccurate is weak sauce. Even Trump called out the bias and usually told them why they had no journalistic integrity.

 

The question was to another user, asking what made him more qualified than reed on this issue.

 

Regarding the ‘whistleblower’ Jamie Reed
You have to wonder why, after seeing a thousand or so patients in the clinic, she omits to discuss success stories and provides anecdotes of less than a dozen poor outcomes. She isn’t a doctor, a psychologist, a psychiatrist; she was a case worker who navigated insurance claims and took intake calls. How is it that she knows better for these patients and again why the focus on just a few cases? Could it be there she has an agenda? Article that discusses this — https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/missouri-anti-trans-whistleblower

Parents who have taken their children to the clinic dispute Reed’s comments
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/202...ms-about-transgender-care-are-under-fire.html

From another source:
https://www.assignedmedia.org/breaking-news/jamie-reeds-allegations-are-not-even-partially-confirmed

It’s fairly typical for some to focus on a few cases that have negative outcomes and ignore the positive outcomes.

It’s interesting that people can’t tolerate anybody under the age of 18 having surgery for gender related issues or being prescribed medication to block puberty. They use loaded words such as ‘slicing’ and ‘mutilation’. When a child undergoes surgery for cosmetic reasons, it isn’t denigrated and turned into slicing and mutation. In 2022, 23,527 cosmetic surgery procedures were performed on people on 19 and under. In fact, There were 244,252 minimally invasive cosmetic procedures performed as well. This is well tolerated by the population. The government doesn’t interfere in plastic surgery for cosmetic reasons to make a child feel better. I have never heard a teenager having a nose job referred to as being ‘sliced’ and ‘mutilated’ because some physical attribute makes them feel self-conscious and/or peers are bullying them for their looks. The problem is when a teenager doesn’t like their appearance due to gender issues and wants surgical intervention or medication, it’s unacceptable. That seems wholly hypocritical and rooted in bias and transphobia.

I guess when politicians focus on transgender issues, it takes the focus off the number of children living in poverty, families not being able to afford healthy food, the unaffordability of housing which results in children living in shelters and cars. I guess they don’t want to deal with real problems, they would rather focus on endangered youth to make their lives worse by cutting off the help they need by exaggerating harms and ignoring the positives. This kind of intolerance looks good on nobody.

 

Doctors dont have "rights" to recommend and perform medical procedures on children as a treatment for a mental disorder, without evidence that the procedures are safe and effective. Especially in the face of much evidence that they are not safe or effective.

 

You're right, coerced is a better word to describe it.

 

You

If you worked at and were trained at that Holiday Inn would it make you more qualified?

 

Figure it the **** out, not my fault you can't follow what's going on.

 

Following right along. The woman in question didn't just visit the clinic she WORKED there.