I asked a question. Why would you ask if I’m inferring unless you had some issue with your original post? The question has merit and value beyond the way you frame it as “only to discredit you”. Understanding has value to most if not you.get it to x wrote: ↑Tue Jul 11, 2023 9:47 amAre you inferring that I have some hidden motive in citing the story? it was linked in a story about the censorship of the study. Who cares where and why I read it unless it is your wish to discredit me, the author or both. I posted this to posit that many of these late developing cases are the result of societal influences and progressive medical professionals who sometimes have a financial motive in addition to their clinical viewpoint. There is potential long term harm in steering adolescents into irreversible medical procedures. Knowingly doing this violates the principle of “first, do no harm “.Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Tue Jul 11, 2023 8:44 amMedical professionals have this issue same as any Romanian knowledge expert:get it to x wrote: ↑Tue Jul 11, 2023 8:11 am https://www.thefp.com/p/trans-activists ... ific-paper
Interesting how censorship is used to put down any contrary ideas. The paper in question was about Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria, which presented mainly (75%) in adolescent girls who had not previously shown any gender identity issues. The inference is that many of these were not clinical cases of gender dysphoria but that gender identity was a diagnosis used to explain a general unhappiness and that girls were steered in that direction. In addition, many parents felt pressured to permit surgical and/or hormonal treatment. Trans activists had the publisher retract the paper.
The paper went to great lengths to show the limitations of it's own study, but it appears any deviation from the progressive stance of medical intervention will be shut down and it's authors publicly shamed.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6060929/
Less technical definition
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iatrogenesis
I’m curious though when and why you decided to read the study you cite. Or if you did read it or just regurgitating a story about the report that was generated by others.
So to be clear you pulled this from a story focused on the perceived problem you’re alluding to, you didn’t search out the study.
Not that it matters unless you’re trying to discredit me and project but I was curious why someone would search out those studies - have kids, have a political agenda, general intellectual curiosity. It’s clear from your overly sensitive and projectile response that you were looking for confirmation of your own issues and then present them as of a study you looked for purely out of intellectual interest so actually I see what your doing here. The introduction w censorship was not really your words then of your own unique thoughts process and separate articulation.