If you argue with people about gender transition and hormone therapy and so forth they will tell you that it's Dr recommended and psychiatrists support it and that is legitimate care. But back when doctors were doing lobotomies they were saying the same thing. Is it out of the desire to be the one that fixes the problem? I can understand wanting to make people feel better. But doing something that damages a person because you want it to work doesn't help. The NHS of UK has already banned this practice on children. The WPATH files have exposed this organization as being unethical. WPATH if you didn't know is the organization that recommends gender reassignment. https://youtube.com/shorts/9oY19o4c-WA?si=xJBv7aLee2y2Pd1w https://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/wpath-files
Simply consider this surgery is being performed to try and solve a mental disorder. If you look between your legs and see a penis, it's obvious that you are a male.
A lobotomy changes who somebody is, to control mental illness, often against their will. Personhood is defined by the mind, and the brain is the seat of that. Gender transition is changing somebody's body to align with their will, so in some ways it's the opposite situation. And it's more similar to elective surgeries like plastic surgery for cosmetic reasons. Main difference is instead of just wanting to look better it's more fundamental than that. If it's the approach that leads to the best outcomes from the patient's perspective, it's a good approach. Lobotomy was a difficult situation, because we're talking about people who already had lost their autonomy due to mental illness. Gender dysphoria isn't the same kind of psychiatric condition at all. It's really all a question of if evidence will continue to support its use. Studies that challenge it that I've seen have been flawed.
the only reason you're saying this is the time you live in you have the gift of hindsight. At the time they were doing them they were considered legitimate. people can get whatever kind of plastic surgery they want it always looks bad but they can do it. It should have to be adults. I can take whatever hormones they want but they should also have to be adults to do that. again you're only saying this because you have to get the hindsight. In 30 years we have a bunch of adult units that were betrayed by their doctors when their children will look back on this crap like a lobotomy. Hindsight's 20/20. all studies by any human ever made in existence of studies are flawed. You cannot list a single perfect study. They don't really give you evidence either they give you anecdotes. Again we study people back in a time when the bodies lose seen as legitimate they would have said that their condition improved. There is no world in which poisoning children with incorrect hormones for their sex is ever going to be seen as anything legitimate. Once a good number of them die of cancer we'll see.
Die of cancer? Seems unlikely. May even be less likely to get certain cancers. Can't think of one they'd be more likely to get. No, I'm not even criticizing lobotomies (not standard of care now of course, but my point wasn't to say oh they were bad but now we're good), just saying it's a far more difficult ethical situation that those doctors were in. This isn't a difficult ethical situation at all. Follow the evidence. Anecdotes are not studies. The closest thing called a study that could be called anecdotal is known as a case report. Case reports don't really give statistical data. They're more a starting point for doctors on the worst or most unusual things that can happen. As a pathologist, I use them to see if something unusual I'm thinking is unprecedented, in which case it's far more likely that I am simply wrong and need to get help from other pathologists. Studies with statistical analysis, properly done, are not at all anecdotes.
this is medical illiteracy. A male who takes external estrogen stands a much greater chance of getting cancer than a male who doesn't. To deny this or to pretend that those men are somehow women is to disregard reality for ideology. I'm not sure if testosterone affects women this way large doses of estrogen in men is carcinogenic. only after the legitimacy of lobotomies was disproven as a treatment. And people pumping 9-year-olds full of castration drugs will be in that same category when we find out how stupid that really is. that's only because you have the gift of hindsight. Back when the medical experts were all saying that it wasn't an ethical violation that it was a legitimate procedure you didn't have any of that evidence. That means a bunch of other people question something they went against medical authority and the presumed science of the time. You keep saying I know it's unethical because people questioned it and the challenged the professionals. exactly studies are a collection of anecdotes. no study in the history of humanity has ever given conclusive data. Studies are just a way to collect a bunch of different information. To determine a causal link between two variables you have to do more than just a study. everybody on the internet says they're a doctor so I don't care that you say this I don't believe you you have no evidence and it's you shouldn't use that sort of thing unless you're willing to put your name and your credentials online. If you can't explain procedures then I doubt your professionalism. You've already shown because you don't understand that lobotomy's word at one time considered legitimate you don't understand the flow of time so I question anything you say
Interesting you should say that. Which cancer? Well established estrogen-dependent cancers are breast, ovarian, and endometrial. They don't have ovaries or endometrium. Male breast cancer epidemic is your prediction? It has been postulated that, despite its role in therapy, estrogen can help cause prostate carcinogenesis. But its role is clearly less than androgens. And these people are being deprived of androgens. Prostate cancer in transgender women - Harvard Health
I didn't say anything about it estrogen dependent Cancers and women were talking about putting estrogen in men. You're avoidance of that reality seems to indicate you are being dishonest. this is also very dishonest of you I'm not talking about treatments for prostate cancer I'm talking about so-called treatments for gender dysphoria. Women don't have prostates only men do so if they have a prostate biologically speaking they are men. You don't even know the differences between sexes you must be the world's worst pathologist.
lol... there's a reason I had you on ignore, but your thread enticed me, and your assertion that estrogen being given to trans male to female creating a lot of cancer intrigued me. You even called me medically illiterate for "not knowing" that giving estrogen to these people will cause cancer. Do you concede the point or have something interesting to teach me? Do you concede that hormone therapy in these people will not increase their cancer rates? If not, what cancers increase and how? Look, pathologists aren't oncologists. The primary job of the anatomic pathologist is to recognize and grade cancers under the microscope. Detailed knowledge of carcinogenesis isn't actually a part of our daily practice yet. Though we do have to know markers for immunohistochemistry. We don't do autopsies where I work, so telling between sexes is also irrelevant to us. ... well, it's more based upon what's in the chart. We don't have to order NKX3.1 if the person was born female and has adenocarcinoma of unknown primary, and we are less likely to order PAX-8 if it's not a person born female as endometrial and ovarian cancers are off the table (though some cancers that men get are PAX-8 positive).
cuz you need to be in an echo chamber that's how you stay ideological. so you're going to put me back on ignore because I figured out that you lied very quickly about being a pathologist? You're just trying to add some legitimacy to this stupid **** you believe doesn't matter you're not either one of those. I'm not interested in reading about you feeding are you going pretending your pathologist during oncologist or whatever the hell you think you are. You're not you don't even know that women don't have prostates you don't know the first thing about human anatomy. Sorry you shouldn't say what you do for a living and pretend to like that gives you any expertise unless you're willing to prove that you are who you say you are and that you have these credentials. Without evidence of any of this nothing you have to say about it is of any validity.
The reason I had you on ignore is because of your completely unhinged, irrational and abrasive posts. Just being harsh I can handle. Plenty of that on here. You can believe me or not. If I cared enough I could prove it, but I don't. Can you please just address my question? Why are you so sure that male to female trans people get more cancer from being given estrogens? People who call themselves women, are trans, and were born men, have prostates. They do not usually remove prostates even for fully transitioned persons because of morbidity of doing so.
you want to be in an echo chamber. However you justify it by saying everyone that doesn't agree with me is crazy that's why you can try to rationalize it for yourself that's your business. this is a pathetic excuse for why you can't argue. It's also a personal attack. I'm not whining I'm glad you personally attacked me. It means you abandoned into the argument and thus lost to focus on me because you're taking something personally. you are trying to give more gravity to your posts. If you didn't care you would not use your lies to bolster your argument. That is the only reason you do that. there is no such thing as male to female trans people you cannot transition from male to female. Tell me how it's irrational to understand that fact. are just like people who call themselves cats or potatoes or space aliens. I don't care about adhering to someone's delusion. And I'm not going to play this trans woman crap it's a man. There is no such thing as a trans woman. There is no such thing as transition. There are crossdressers there are crossdressers that take hormones there are crossdressers that remove their genitals there is no transitioning. I don't adhere to this brain that ideology and if you do and you are a pathologist everyone who has seen you should demand their money back.
Okay yes, still posting unhinged irrational posts and unable to back up your increased cancer claim. Got it. Edit: nevermind, I don't have time
No I'm posting a very logical post it's just one you can't argue with. There is no transitioning from male to female you're saying things that are brainless. Not going to waste my time trying to find this specific cancers that it causes for someone who doesn't know the basics. Men cannot transition into women that's not possible.
In a way I get where you're coming from. How you feel about trans people is how I feel about religious people. Why do I tolerate their ridiculous, delusional beliefs about magical zombie Jesus? Because being an arse to them about it will help neither them nor me. I know they're delusional, but telling them this isn't the best thing for them. In medicine, you do what helps people. It's not about being right unless it's in service to helping them. Now, the reality is that people who call themselves women, but were born men, exist. You had stated you believe hormonal treatment is giving them extra cancer. Please tell me where you got that idea. What are the details? Or were you just guessing?
I don't feel any way about transgender people. When you're born male you are male until you die there's no transition. And you connected it to religion which is really a good idea because the idea that there's some sort of biological difference between a man and a man but when I was a crossdresser is like religion. but they're only delusional if they think they're a woman and they're really a man. If they're a man that wants to be seen and socially treated as a woman and they know that which that's a lot of trans people then they're not delusional. It's only the ones that say I am a woman when did I not it's like saying I am cat or I'm 50 people on the side of one body. yeah they're men and they're lying. I'm not going to tell the lie. Why? It's a lot of work to get all of that information. And I need to go to reason to do it and just you wanting to know isn't good enough. I don't just have it on hand ready to go. I think the reason you want me to provide all this for you so you can try and debunk it all up that's why religious people do the religious thing and you're doing the exact same thing religious people do. So what is my motive?
It’s not about your motive. You had stated something I am interested in and was contrary to what I already believed/knew. It’s not that hard to name the general idea if you weren’t just making it up.
Well if I have no impetus to do something for you I won't. Okay... So? I'm okay with you thinking I just made it up. So again it's 100% about motive.
I approach every argument as though the opponent is trying to convince me. It is a different approach than most people. I know proving people wrong is a fools errand. So I have no interest in showing you anything. If you genuinely thought you might be wrong you'd already be reading the articles and various things I have. It's exactly like religion in that it's orthodoxy. Again at one time lobotomies were considered legitimate medical treatment. It was only people that questioned the status quo that afforded you the ability to claim that it was unethical The practitioners that were jamming spikes into people's skulls and scrambling their brains had loads of "medical science" backing them up. That's why you never trust the science. You verify it. So if my approach frustrates you I'm okay with you ignoring me.
I believe in 20 years history will look back on this in the same way we look back on leeches, lobotomies, santariums and radium suppositories.
I think it's already starting. We have the WPATH files. Legislation and so forth. I don't mean to turn this into a lecture but one thing I've noticed that people say that I think is wrong is they say this is parents right. It is in parents rights it's children's rights. Children have the right to have a parent advocate for them. To know what's best in their development. So if you say that try to remind yourself it's about children's rights to their protection.
No one has a right to put cigarettes out on their kid's forehead or sell videos of them naked, no matter how many quacks they can find that say it will help the child.
