Continuation Transwomen are not women - part 13

[Samson]

Cause for concern here if true.
7 years to regret and sometimes need for suicide appears tragically commonplace.

https://twitter.com/ejrosetta/status...KK-vT-3NA&s=19

Thread continued from here http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=366420

Posted By:sarge

[Cain]

Originally Posted by Ron Obvious

If that's the case, why segregate such facilities at all?

That's what I argued earlier. Utopian society is inhabited by Utopians whereas the United States is inhabited by lunatics.

Quote:

If segregation is a requirement, I really can't see the case for gender segregation instead of sex segregation under any circumstances...

Thales, a pre-Socratic philosopher, once announced to his students that there was no difference between living and dying. They predictably asked, "Why don't you just die?" "Because," he answered, "there is no difference."

Temporarily leaving arrangements in place would help ease transition costs, psychological and physical. Without urinals in what were formerly women's restrooms, there's a non-trivial risk of de facto segregation. That, however, pales in comparison to the near certainty opportunistic demagogues and grifters will thunder about unisex bathrooms. I can see the Tweets already: "The Left HATES diversity so much that they want sex rather than two."

Quote:

gender segregation is a solution looking for a problem and is called for only to validate the feelings of those with gender dysphoria that they really are the opposite sex.

Do you refuse to use people's stated pronouns?

[Ron Obvious]

Originally Posted by Cain

Do you refuse to use people's stated pronouns?

I don't see the point of using their stated pronouns when they're not around, no. Of course, that's the usual occasion when pronouns are used.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Ron Obvious

I don't see the point of using their stated pronouns when they're not around, no. Of course, that's the usual occasion when pronouns are used.

"Hey Bob! Alice here was just suggesting we have a team meeting every Friday afternoon. What do you think of her suggestion?"

"Bob, can I introduce you to Alice? She's going to be working in Ken's team."

"I know it's a bit noisy in here Bob: Alice was just saying that she might leave soon."

"Thank you all for coming to this meeting. It was Alice who suggested holding it, and I'm going to hand things over to her to open the meeting. Over to you, Alice."

"Alice here has just kindly offered to do a coffee run - let her know whether you want her to get you one."

"Let's see how each of you in the meeting expressed a favourite for our lunch choice in the email replies that you previously sent back to me: Bob says he's in favour of pizza; Alice says she'd prefer sandwiches; ...."

etc, etc, etc.

[Ron Obvious]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Blah blah blah

I'm not sure what that blather was in aid of.

I'm a sceptic: I'm not interested in validating people's sincerely-held delusions. Whether that's their belief in being born in the wrong body, that Jesus is the son of God, or Dianetics.

Frankly, it's about time the rest of the sceptical movement did the same and returned to its roots and gave the boot to this post-modern waffle.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

"Hey Bob! Alice here was just suggesting we have a team meeting every Friday afternoon. What do you think of her suggestion?"

"Bob, can I introduce you to Alice? She's going to be working in Ken's team."

"I know it's a bit noisy in here Bob: Alice was just saying that she might leave soon."

"Thank you all for coming to this meeting. It was Alice who suggested holding it, and I'm going to hand things over to her to open the meeting. Over to you, Alice."

"Alice here has just kindly offered to do a coffee run - let her know whether you want her to get you one."

"Let's see how each of you in the meeting expressed a favourite for our lunch choice in the email replies that you previously sent back to me: Bob says he's in favour of pizza; Alice says she'd prefer sandwiches; ...."

etc, etc, etc.

Err... WTF?

[Roboramma]

Originally Posted by Ron Obvious

I'm not sure what that blather was in aid of.

It was in response to this narrow claim:

Originally Posted by Ron Obvious

I don't see the point of using their stated pronouns when they're not around, no. Of course, that's the usual occasion when pronouns are used.

You suggested that you don't need to refer to someone by pronouns when they're around, and since when they're not around you don't need to worry about giving offense, there's no need to use their preferred pronouns. LJ gave some examples of when you would refer to someone by a pronoun when they were there to hear it.

Which is a narrow argument that there is a need to use pronouns to refer to people when they are around.

Which pronoun you should use in that case is a separate question, but LJ is clearly right on this narrow point.

[Aber]

Originally Posted by Manger Douse

The total I'm reading says £100,000

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...00-by-tribunal

Balance is loss of earnings and interest; aggravated damages of £27k is unusual in employment cases.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Err... WTF?

He's trying to show examples where you would use pronouns in the presence of the person the pronouns refer to, as if that disproves the claim that most pronoun usage isn't in the person's presence.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

He's trying to show examples where you would use pronouns in the presence of the person the pronouns refer to, as if that disproves the claim that most pronoun usage isn't in the person's presence.

As long as we're doing made up examples, here are a few:

"An unidentified assailant fled the scene. He is considered armed and dangerous."

"The pelvis of this skeleton indicates that he was male."

"Beth never met her father, always assumed he was a deadbeat."

In such cases as these, we use masculine pronouns because we believe the subject is male, even though we have little to no specific information about their gender role or identity.

[Sherkeu]

I recently discussed this with my teen daughter....so far no males in her locker room (though it is legally allowed).

I asked her if she heard about people who wanted to be a clown or cats. I was totally joking about it but she said, seriously...
"We have those at my school"
Wait, what? Really?
"Yes Mom, they identify as all sorts of things. They are sort of the weird kids. None of my friends I hang out with but some in class. Lots in the drama club like Anne from 8th grade."
Oh so Anne is now a cat?
"No mom, ugh, Anne is now Steve".
She chose the name Steve of all the names?
"That was the name she told us so that is what we call her now. Steve."
She still has cool layered clothes and the green hair?
"Yes"
So does that mean she uses the boys bathroom now?
"No, the actual boys are in there. Don't be dumb mom."

[Trausti]

I'd think the reason to ignore preferred pronouns is that those people who insist on them are usually terrible people.

[Horhang]

I don’t think I have seen this referenced in the thread so I am going to throw it into the mix.
Chloe Cole is an 18 year old sueing Kaiser in California.
She identified as trans at 12. Went on puberty blockers and testosterone at 13. Had a double mastectomy at 15.
At 16 realized she was not trans and there were other issues.

ETA: other issues meaning other psychological issues. There was no questioning of the statement that she was a boy, when there were other psychological issues going on.

[Sherkeu]

Originally Posted by Horhang

I don’t think I have seen this referenced in the thread so I am going to throw it into the mix.
Chloe Cole is an 18 year old sueing Kaiser in California.
She identified as trans at 12. Went on puberty blockers and testosterone at 13. Had a double mastectomy at 15.
At 16 realized she was not trans and there were other issues.

It is child abuse, plain and simple- most of the time. With the increasing numbers, especially females, likely the vast majority of the time.
Prediction: 5 to 10 years from now there will be a conference of thousands of detransitioners sharing their stories and a will offer a larger voice in protecting these kids. Right now, there just arent enough that have gone through the whole rapidly trending process into adulthood.

There are a few who will benefit and insist kids have the choice.

eta: Where is the species affirming care for the 'cat' identifiers? or the clowns, or the furries? What type of health care do we give them? Should parents be criminal if they do not affirm everything their children demand theiy feel? No matter what it is?

When I was in HS, gay was an obvious physical thing. But being goth or emo or punk rock, was not. It is mostly a phase. If you could get hormones back then to be MORE that way, whichever expression they had, I'm sure some people I knew would have taken them....and insisted they'd want it FOREVER!! They were legit dedicated and 'true' to their group. But we all know kids grow out of things like that.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Horhang

I don’t think I have seen this referenced in the thread so I am going to throw it into the mix.
Chloe Cole is an 18 year old sueing Kaiser in California.
She identified as trans at 12. Went on puberty blockers and testosterone at 13. Had a double mastectomy at 15.
At 16 realized she was not trans and there were other issues.

ETA: other issues meaning other psychological issues. There was no questioning of the statement that she was a boy, when there were other psychological issues going on.

This is precisely the sort of thing I was talking about in this post
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...6#post14099126

When I said "primum non nocere" forms part of the Hippocratic Oath that all doctors swear to. It means "First, do no harm", this is what I meant. Someone asked me what harm would be done by prescribing puberty blockers to a pre-teen... well the above quoted is an on-point example.

Those who recommended all this "treatment" have done undeniable, irreparable and irreversible harm to this person. Doctors who do this stuff should not just be sued into financial oblivion, they need to be permanently stripped of their licenses to practice. Doctors who might do this sort of stuff need to be made so ******* terrified of the career-ending consequences of getting it wrong, that they will be unwilling to take the risk.

[Sherkeu]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

This is precisely the sort of thing I was talking about in this post
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...6#post14099126

When I said "primum non nocere" forms part of the Hippocratic Oath that all doctors swear to. It means "First, do no harm", this is what I meant. Someone asked me what harm would be done by prescribing puberty blockers to a pre-teen... well the above quoted is an on-point example.

Those who recommended all this "treatment" have done undeniable, irreparable and irreversible harm to this person. Doctors who do this stuff should not just be sued into financial oblivion, they need to be permanently stripped of their licenses to practice. Doctors who might do this sort of stuff need to be made so ******* terrified of the career-ending consequences of getting it wrong, that they will be unwilling to take the risk.

So agree!!

Puberty blockers do have a small role in certain circumstances of precocious puberty- like an 7 or 8yr old girl getting her period or some other rare conditions. This is because menstruation may signal the bones to fuse within a year or 2 and growth stops.
Some boys have been prescribed it for short stature - off-label from the concern of early puberty. Odd for the current use since a boy that wants to be a girl may end up taller!!

There is a hand xray they do to test for how close the bones are to fusing - and I learned about these various reasons they do it when my kid needed one- before all this trans stuff was so trendy for children.

She had one of these xrays at 10yo as a follow-up to breaking her leg when she was 2yo (just below the knee) to see how many degrees it may shift and if any correction was needed before her bones were done growing. She was 2-3 degrees off, which is well inside the normal range and didnt need any intervention for that, or for length.

Giving these blockers to healthy children not just to stave off puberty, but to prevent it altogether, and prevent what is known to be the cure for their distress- puberty!- is untested long term. We shall see.


info on the bone test for kids....I dont think we have seen this before in this thread, which is a rarity to have something new!
https://kidshealth.org/en/parents/xray-bone-age.html

Quote:

The test also can help doctors monitor progress and guide treatment of kids with conditions that affect growth, including:

diseases that affect the levels of growth hormones, such as growth hormone deficiency, hypothyroidism, precocious puberty, and adrenal gland disorders
genetic growth disorders, such as Turner syndrome

orthopedic or orthodontic problems in which the timing and type of treatment (surgery, bracing, etc.) are guided by the child's expected growth

[Samson]

It can be said that puberty is the cure for gender dysphoria.
F to M transition seems to work fine after puberty.

Here is a video that easily proves this.

https://youtu.be/RHAvn8dAbvY

The Danish doctor that did the transition says much better to medicate too many than to miss a few. No, you did not misread, it is very precisely dealt with in the video.

Marcus speaks, I have redacted for brevity and sense.
About minute 16

Recently asked:
Aren't you afraid that some of these
children will regret it because we we are not we can't know if if this is the
right thing for them?
She said, well basically she said, I don't care because
you know, I would rather give this treatment to too many kids
than than not giving it to enough.
It's just really disgusting she's a member of Wpath.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by TheGoldcountry

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Your post only makes sense if you conflate sex and gender.

Gender is meaningless all the time. It's an artificially imposed construct that largely serves to police the behaviors of males and females and force them into little bitty boxes that limit their ability to participate equally in society. Historically, gender has been used to elevate and privilege males while keeping females in a dependent and subservient role.

Sex is not meaningless. It's an observable material reality of our species. And it has ramifications for each of us as an individual as well as for the continuation of humanity.

I'm sorry if you missed my point, but I agree with you. There are many people taking up both sides of the argument when it's convenient to do so. "Gender is a meaningless social construct" is brought up when it enhances their standing, but they will switch easily to "gender is important, and my gender is internally defined so you just have to accept it."

Apparently, gender identity is only important sometimes.

I just want people to pick a lane and stick with it, whether I agree or not. The goalpost moving makes me dizzy.

Agree completely - it's become a bit of a samba-tapdancing-square dance with some carnival mirrors and hidden doors involved.

[theprestige]

At the local watering hole this Saturday, conversation between barflies and bartender turned towards the attitude - shared by most at the bar - that it was perfectly okay to refer to niblings and cousins and friends of friends by whichever name one thought suited them best, regardless of their expressed preferences.

"My nephew hates it when I call him by his given name, rather than his preferred nickname, but that's how I know him, and his disgruntlement amuses me."

"I always introduce my friend's girlfriend by her nickname, even though she prefers to go by her given name these days, because I still think of her by her nickname."

And so on.

This in Portland, Oregon, vanguard of the "ignoring preferred pronouns and deadnaming people are serious human rights violations" school of thought. I kept my mouth shut, but was sorely tempted to ask some awkward questions.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Cain

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

But the majority of the arguments are not being made to turn everything unisex... the arguments being made are to make them be separated on the basis of gender identity instead of sex. And that makes no sense.

I can see a plausible case being made for spas and changing rooms due to exposure and voyeurism, but what about restrooms? If you're against a gender identity standard for restrooms, I'd like to know why. Because enforceability is not just an issue for self-ID. I can waltz into many office buildings right now and use a toilet for free, but if I want to go to a sauna or take a shower, I probably have to pass by a staff member. Access to those facilities is limited because they usually have a price. They're also not as necessary as restrooms. I cannot remember using a communal shower or changing room in my adult life.

So restrooms... Most people are okay with making accommodations in public restrooms, within reason. Of all the items under discussion, the loos are pretty low on the list for the majority of people.

There are some exceptions. For example, restrooms in schools, where the student's don't have any reasonable choice to use or not. And where there've now been a couple of cases of a female being assaulted by a male in the female restroom. I think most middle-school females aren't going to be super crazy about having males in the restroom when they're changing their pads or tampons, and would be extremely uncomfortable if they thought a male might hear it.

The other consideration is that females very frequently use bathrooms in ways that are almost entirely exactly not like the way males use them. And I think that gets ignored a lot, even by well-meaning males, because you very likely don't know.

Females will talk to each other. Sure, you've probably heard about the request for some TP to be handed under the stall when someone is out. But we'll also offer comfort and a hug to a complete stranger who is crying in the toilet. We go to the restroom in groups - you all know this. Partly it's so we're not alone somewhere that we might end up being vulnerable... but very often it's because that's the only space we have that is male-free, where we can talk about things that we don't want to involve males in. We talk about relationships and personal things and medical things, and pretty much all sorts of things, because it's one of the only spaces outside of our own homes where we *can* have those discussions without a male inserting themselves. Which might seem kind of mean... but the reality is that females don't have the privilege of being open about our experiences and our views without a high degree of male scrutiny - and a lot of males seem to think that they are entitled to insert themselves and provide their own views on our experiences.

Bathrooms are also a place that females escape to. I'm not really exaggerating here. In restaurants, in night clubs, in any public venue where there's a likelihood of a male looking to hook up... the bathroom is where we get away from them. I would guess that almost every adult female in your life has had this experience - they go out with some friends, and a male starts hitting on one of them, and just won't take no for an answer. When we run out of ways to say "go away, I'm not interested"... we go to the bathroom and stay there until we think maybe he will have gone away. I've been cornered against a wall by a pushy male at a party, I've been stuck in a booth by a male who decided they were going to join my friend and I - without having been invited. And I, like most females, have also had the experience of telling a male in no uncertain terms to go away and then having them get very aggressively angry at me, start calling me names, and then follow me around with threats and intimidation. It's not uncommon.

Those are some of the things that females use bathrooms for, that most males are probably not aware of. And consequently, that's what we lose if all bathrooms are made unisex in order to cater to gender identity.

It's an accommodation that could be tolerable to females in general... but it should be recognized that females are giving up more than just a place to pee.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

As long as we're doing made up examples, here are a few:

"An unidentified assailant fled the scene. He is considered armed and dangerous."

"The pelvis of this skeleton indicates that he was male."

"Beth never met her father, always assumed he was a deadbeat."

In such cases as these, we use masculine pronouns because we believe the subject is male, even though we have little to no specific information about their gender role or identity.

Technically, we're only using belief in the first scenario, where it is possible that the assailant was a particularly buff and masculine appearing female.

In the other two, it's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of observable reality. The pelvis is observed to be that of a male, and the pronoun chosen is based on sex. In the third case... well... I infer that Beth is aware of their own mother, therefore the father is required by evolution to be male.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Sherkeu

I recently discussed this with my teen daughter....so far no males in her locker room (though it is legally allowed).

I asked her if she heard about people who wanted to be a clown or cats. I was totally joking about it but she said, seriously...
"We have those at my school"
Wait, what? Really?
"Yes Mom, they identify as all sorts of things. They are sort of the weird kids. None of my friends I hang out with but some in class. Lots in the drama club like Anne from 8th grade."
Oh so Anne is now a cat?
"No mom, ugh, Anne is now Steve".
She chose the name Steve of all the names?
"That was the name she told us so that is what we call her now. Steve."
She still has cool layered clothes and the green hair?
"Yes"
So does that mean she uses the boys bathroom now?
"No, the actual boys are in there. Don't be dumb mom."

[Sherkeu]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Agree completely - it's become a bit of a samba-tapdancing-square dance with some carnival mirrors and hidden doors involved.

As far as I can glean from all sides using these dimorphic words in different ways, gender and sex are still the same thing as they always were: male or female.

However, if you want to say someone is trans, the terminology should be "gender expression" which give people some latitude as to how they want to appear within the social norms of where they live.

We know, scientifically, you cannot change the sex that you are born with in terms of xx or xy (excluding the very rare cases where the chromosomes are abnormal- which also cannot change), or redefine biology, despite what some professors twist themselves into knots to try to do.
They fail at every attempt. Biological reality is still reality and using words to try to warp it as some sort of social justice only lasts as long as you can dupe people into believing it. Eventually, reality prevails.

So, let us celebrate gender expression as a socially acceptable term. I think it is, for sure. But I do not have to see these persons as biological women. That crosses the line for me. They are not and never will be, even if I decide to treat them "as if" in a social situation.

ETA: i do notice....and i think many of my fellow females here also notice, that many many many more males here at ISF are ok with trans persons crossing the female line with male bodies and are happy to chastise us for not going along with it. It's as if they dont know what it is to be female!!!

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Sherkeu

But being goth or emo or punk rock, was not. It is mostly a phase. If you could get hormones back then to be MORE that way, whichever expression they had, I'm sure some people I knew would have taken them....and insisted they'd want it FOREVER!! They were legit dedicated and 'true' to their group. But we all know kids grow out of things like that.

Can you imagine doctors prescribing depressants to teens to affirm their emo identity?

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

When I said "primum non nocere" forms part of the Hippocratic Oath that all doctors swear to. It means "First, do no harm", this is what I meant. Someone asked me what harm would be done by prescribing puberty blockers to a pre-teen... well the above quoted is an on-point example.

The harm from gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists has been provided multiple times in the several incarnations of this thread.

Each time it is met with silence and is ignored. Then several months later the same question of "what's the harm?" gets reintroduced as a fringe reset.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by theprestige

At the local watering hole this Saturday, conversation between barflies and bartender turned towards the attitude - shared by most at the bar - that it was perfectly okay to refer to niblings and cousins and friends of friends by whichever name one thought suited them best, regardless of their expressed preferences.

"My nephew hates it when I call him by his given name, rather than his preferred nickname, but that's how I know him, and his disgruntlement amuses me."

"I always introduce my friend's girlfriend by her nickname, even though she prefers to go by her given name these days, because I still think of her by her nickname."

And so on.

This in Portland, Oregon, vanguard of the "ignoring preferred pronouns and deadnaming people are serious human rights violations" school of thought. I kept my mouth shut, but was sorely tempted to ask some awkward questions.

It's all very special pleading, isn't it?

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Sherkeu

ETA: i do notice....and i think many of my fellow females here also notice, that many many many more males here at ISF are ok with trans persons crossing the female line with male bodies and are happy to chastise us for not going along with it. It's as if they dont know what it is to be female!!!

Oh yes, many of us have noticed.

We've also noticed the many times where a male has proceeded to tell us that we're wrong, we're overreacting, and we just need to calm down and be nice.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Can you imagine doctors prescribing depressants to teens to affirm their emo identity?

It gets weirder when you consider that goth & emo boys were actively queering gender expression: eyeliner, lipstick, nail polish, skirts, etc.

Source: Firsthand experience from 90s goth clubs and basements and basement clubs.

[Manger Douse]

Originally Posted by Sherkeu

ETA: i do notice....and i think many of my fellow females here also notice, that many many many more males here at ISF are ok with trans persons crossing the female line with male bodies and are happy to chastise us for not going along with it. It's as if they dont know what it is to be female!!!

There are some males here who do remember the patriarchy is still a thing - it's just seems to be the comfortable, middle class liberal ones who forget

[Trausti]

Originally Posted by Sherkeu

ETA: i do notice....and i think many of my fellow females here also notice, that many many many more males here at ISF are ok with trans persons crossing the female line with male bodies and are happy to chastise us for not going along with it. It's as if they dont know what it is to be female!!!

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

It gets weirder when you consider that goth & emo boys were actively queering gender expression: eyeliner, lipstick, nail polish, skirts, etc.

Source: Firsthand experience from 90s goth clubs and basements and basement clubs.

Same kind of first-hand experience. When we met, my spouse wore eyeliner pretty regularly. They still paint their toenails.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Trausti

https://i.postimg.cc/B6NG7zBT/transw-omenarewomen.jpg

I see a few of our forum members in that image!

[Samson]

There is a new political party in New Zealand to seek the protection of rights women on this thread discuss.

https://womensrightsparty.nz/

For $5 I joined.

[Matthew Best]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-66107716

"A teenage boy who was sexually assaulted by two women woke up with his clothes removed and injuries to his head and body, Sussex Police have said.

Both women were between 18 and 20 years old, one being 6ft 3in (1.9m) tall and with bright dyed red hair."

Unfortunately, due to the way these things are now reported, until they are arrested, we can no longer tell if these were "cis" women or trans women. But a 6ft 3" woman with red hair is going to be pretty easy to find, I would have thought.

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by Horhang

I don’t think I have seen this referenced in the thread so I am going to throw it into the mix.
Chloe Cole is an 18 year old sueing Kaiser in California.
She identified as trans at 12. Went on puberty blockers and testosterone at 13. Had a double mastectomy at 15.
At 16 realized she was not trans and there were other issues.

ETA: other issues meaning other psychological issues. There was no questioning of the statement that she was a boy, when there were other psychological issues going on.

Seems like a long shot unless she can demonstrate that the doctors engaged in medical malpractice, that is, that their care diverged from standards of care or other professional breach.



What is the regret rate for those that transition, and what rate do you think reaches an unacceptable level where individuals and their doctors should no longer be able to pursue this treatment?

For reference, the regret rate for total knee replacement surgery is about 20%.

[d4m10n]

Total knee replacement is a fairly well-defined and discrete event; "transition" can refer to anything from announcing pronouns to undergoing orchiectomy.

[Samson]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

Seems like a long shot unless she can demonstrate that the doctors engaged in medical malpractice, that is, that their care diverged from standards of care or other professional breach.



What is the regret rate for those that transition, and what rate do you think reaches an unacceptable level where individuals and their doctors should no longer be able to pursue this treatment?

For reference, the regret rate for total knee replacement surgery is about 20%.

There are 30 thousand detransitioners on reddit.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

Seems like a long shot unless she can demonstrate that the doctors engaged in medical malpractice, that is, that their care diverged from standards of care or other professional breach.

If her claims are true, then that's exactly what they did. According to her, they never properly diagnosed her, and never properly informed her about the risks and downsides.

The lack of proper diagnosis is a pretty consistent message I've seen from detransitioners, and also from some undercover reporting. And given how almost universal the claim that puberty blockers are reversible gets parroted by providers, and given that this claim is simply false, I think there's a very good chance that she wasn't properly informed. I don't know how easy these claims will be to prove in court, but I don't think it's that long of a shot.

Quote:

For reference, the regret rate for total knee replacement surgery is about 20%.

Regret rate isn't actually relevant here. A person who doesn't regret their treatment is unlikely to sue, but legally speaking, what matters isn't whether or not you regret the treatment but whether the provider fulfilled their responsibilities.

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by Samson

There are 30 thousand detransitioners on reddit.

Nobody would lie on the internet, that's for sure.

Jeez, even for the standards of anti-trans people relying on anecdotes, "my reddit hate board is somewhat popular" is especially thin.

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

If her claims are true, then that's exactly what they did. According to her, they never properly diagnosed her, and never properly informed her about the risks and downsides.

The lack of proper diagnosis is a pretty consistent message I've seen from detransitioners, and also from some undercover reporting. And given how almost universal the claim that puberty blockers are reversible gets parroted by providers, and given that this claim is simply false, I think there's a very good chance that she wasn't properly informed. I don't know how easy these claims will be to prove in court, but I don't think it's that long of a shot.

According to every plaintiff's lawsuit in history they have been done dirty and deserve compensation.

I can't find Kaiser's response anywhere, not sure if it's even been filed yet. Presumably they will claim that they followed every standard of care, thoroughly advised their patient, and only proceeded with informed consent. Far, far too soon to make any conclusions about the claims made.