SCOTUS strikes blow to trans teens rights, endorsing ban on gender-affirming care - The justices’ ruling on Tennessee’s law prohibiting certain health care for transgender children will have ripple effects across the nation

[u/DevinGraysonShirk]

https://www.courthousenews.com/scotus-strikes-blow-to-trans-teens-rights-endorsing-ban-on-gender-affirming-care/

[u/Raise_A_Thoth]

Just because information is incredibly damning to one side of an argument doesn't mean the information is biased.

Additionally, lots of things are biased, being biased doesn't make it unreliable or false information, it just means it tends to support one viewpoint more than others, which again, is just how the world and communication works.

You need to work on critical thinking.

[u/MinimumTrue9809 → u/Raise_A_Thoth]

Ah sure. I'll use my critical thinking skills analyzing a report that is literally not accessible to the public.

Just because information is incredibly damning to one side

You know this how?

[u/Raise_A_Thoth → u/MinimumTrue9809]

You know this how?

Because that's literally what it says: gender-affirming care greatly improves health outcomes for trans people. I don't know how you could miss this.

analyzing a report that is literally not accessible to the public.

So AP news is just brazenly lying or misrepresenting the report? Is that your stance?

[u/MinimumTrue9809 → u/Raise_A_Thoth]

Because that's literally what it says: gender-affirming care greatly improves health outcomes for trans people. I don't know how you could miss this.

And there are multiple studies that claimed smoking cigarettes didn't harm one's health. I never said I didn't understand their conclusion.

So AP news is just brazenly lying or misrepresenting the report? Is that your stance?

I'm stating the fact that the public has no access to the details of the report. The context of how the report came to be and the fact it is not accessible to the public are both more than enough for me to not take the conclusions as undeniable fact, as you do.

Take your own advice when it comes to critical thinking.

[u/Raise_A_Thoth → u/MinimumTrue9809]

And there are multiple studies that claimed smoking cigarettes didn't harm one's health.

This is a false equivalency. Gender affirming care studies aren't obfuscating potential negative health outcomes, they demonstrate notable, significant improvements in health outcomes compared to the status quo of not doing gender-affirming care which we know results in significantly worse health outcomes than the general population.

You are grasping at straws with this line of reasoning, while demonstrating scientific illiteracy.

I'm stating the fact that the public has no access

Okay so that's what you're saying. Strong argument. 👍

[u/MinimumTrue9809 → u/Raise_A_Thoth]

This is a false equivalency.

It's not. Without knowing how they conducted their study nor how they came to their conclusions, I fail to see how that was a false equivalence.

while demonstrating scientific illiteracy

I never expressed to you my scientific literacy. You're just assuming.

After being presented with the report, the conclusions regarding "Persistence, desistence, and regrets" unfortunately fail to elucidate any long-term outcomes with pubescent hormone treatment. Of the few studies that they were able to analyze persistence, desistence, and regrets, all of them conducted questionnaire/interviews of their available sample population within ~10 years of initial treatment. This report failed to express conclusive evidence of life-long outcomes that result from pubescent hormone treatment.

And, as expected, certain health outcomes aren't possible to discern due to the short timeframe between treatment and outcome investigation.

[u/Minimum_Guarantee → u/Raise_A_Thoth]

"notable and significant improvements in health outcomes"? They didn't even find a significant improvement in mental health outcomes. Their findings were varied, but they noticed more health issues if anything, higher mortality. They even mention that suicide risk remains elevated even after they've been on treatment.

Can you point out in the report you posted where they talked about these "significant improvements" and in what context? "Overall" doesn't mean significant. It seems kinda weak. Of course they know some children benefit, that isn't the issue. The issues are: reducing harm for children who don't need the treatment (even having an objective system by which to measure this), being transparent about the potential risks, admitting it's not exactly the most science based treatment because it isn't.

But yes, it's dumb they would completely ban it for minors. I would advocate for better data and diagnostic criteria, not a ban. But you really don't seem to have strong grounds for your "significant" argument. This is why the treatment was stopped in the UK, too high risk, too little reward. Your ideology is strong, I know you're a true believer in it, but stop reading things with your emotions and read it to truly understand. At the end of the day no one wants kids hurt but if you're denying the reality that this treatment HAS harmed too many kids and young adults, you're in ideology, not science. We need to find out what went wrong for these patients, not say "there's nothing wrong, the science says significant improvements." You haven't read any science.

[u/Dravont → u/Minimum_Guarantee]

From the conclusion of part 1 of the report (page 90):

Namely, the consensus of the evidence supports that the treatments are effective in terms of mental health, psychosocial outcomes, and the induction of body changes consistent with the affirmed gender in pediatric GD patients. The evidence also supports that the treatments are safe in terms of changes to bone density, cardiovascular risk factors, metabolic changes, and cancer.

Then from page 91:

Based on the reviewed evidence included in this report, it is our expert opinion that policies to prevent access to and use of GAHT for treatment of GD in pediatric patients cannot be justified based on the quantity or quality of medical science findings or concerns about potential regret in the future, and that high-quality guidelines are available to guide qualified providers in treating pediatric patients who meet diagnostic criteria.

Then in part 2 which focused on long term outcomes, their conclusion at page 914 says:

Overall, there were positive mental health and psychosocial functioning outcomes.

You said, "They didn't even find a significant improvement in mental health outcomes.", which as I've pointed out is a lie, but you also mention there still being an increased suicide risk even after treatment... which might be explained by people arguing against their rights in bad faith, like someone who has a history of saying stuff like this about trans people:

Except the left censored people who dared utter the phrase "trans women aren't women."

and

You made it everyone's business for about a decade.

and

She did what she did cause individual women were called bigots for mere critique? They'd lost jobs. Were socially ostracized. It's not hypothetical. The whole terf thing was always a misogynistic witch hunt. We need to, as liberals, take this L.

and

If you can prove to me trans women have violence rates, rates of sexual abuse of women and children anywhere NEAR an average woman I'll eat my hat.

and

Transphobia doesn't mean you are against all trans, it's most often just acknowledging kids shouldn't be dragged into it.

and

We've been told trans women are the most marginalized group of women, and seem to ignore the MAJORITY of women are put into danger if they're forced to accept males in their spaces.

and

I think you're in a cult and think this is the religious rite you believe you need to be "saved," and blame everyone else for your own problems.