The UK banned puberty blockers. Here's why.
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 май 2024
- "It is very hard to consider yourself 'pro science' (for lack of a better term), and to argue that we have good evidence for these treatments." says Jesse Singal, author of 'The Quick Fix: Why Fad Psychology Can't Cure Our Social Ills.'
Watch this full episode of the Just Asking Questions podcast: • Should kids medically ...
Subscribe to the Just Asking Questions podcast: • Just Asking Questions
RUclips Music: • Just Asking Questions
Apple: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/5SpySKA...
In 20 years there are going to be child chemical castration lawyer ads like there are asbestos class action ads today.
Maybe. I doubt we will have to wait that long in the USA.
I can only hope. It is only the insurance companies that will stop this nonsense
just because there's a "backlash" doesn't mean we shouldn't stop destructive medical practices.
puberty isn't an elective.
it's how children grow into adults, the process changes entire body not just reproductive systems.
Right, but the blockers only block the processes related to gender presentation so who cares
@@conwaysmith9167... no it does stop things other than sexual presentation
@@conwaysmith9167 .. false.
@@conwaysmith9167 hey I think we found that "misinformation" national thing the government is so concerned about
@@conwaysmith9167 That's a straight up lie, it causes osteoporosis, basically weakening of bones, they don't grow as strong as they should.
Putting kids on puberty blockers is both short-term and long-term abuse if you ask me.
When these kids grow up as adults, they're going to have issues with their bones breaking at a much higher rate than anyone else.
Using surgery to treat psychological conditions has a fraught history. Egon Moniz was awarded a Nobel in Medicine for lobotomy.
It is not 'CARE", and it is not "TREATMENT". It would be helpful NOT to use those BS terms.
but it is?
@@conwaysmith9167 NO
@@JohnSmith-gq9gn Nah dude, it is.
@@conwaysmith9167naw gurl, it's really not.
@@jimmaag4274 , then why is it offered by healthcare professionals and exclusively by healthcare professionals? It is a regime of pharmaceutical, physical, and psychological regimens to alleviate the symptoms of a undesired condition. That is medical treatment whether you agree with it or not. Go to church if you want someone to cry to about it.
If cancer rates increased this much doctors would be worried.
No, the Dutch Protocol was 5 years after WPATH put the protocol into their SOC5. Do a timeline guys.
Whatever happened to the Hippocratic Oath?
The one that starts by swearing in the name of goddesses?
@@TC-zf1ji Yeah.
@@lancewalker2595 have you ever read the whole thing?
@@TC-zf1ji I know if Zeus were real many doctors would have met the fate of Aesculapius by now… I wish Zeus were real.
@@lancewalker2595 it obviously doesn't mean anything now a days, so there is no point in mentioning it.
To be fair, most medical studies have significant flaws. Even the big ones. One thing I’ve learned as a statistician is that if the results are surprising, they are probably wrong (ie you messed up).
I worked on large studies of suicidality of teens, and there are a lot of ethical constraints which make it difficult/impossible to ever show causation (not saying that it’s a bad thing to be ethical but it does ruin the logic and math). And even the act of asking a person about his/her mental health seems to have an impact on outcomes, as the incidence of suicidality/suicide/self-harm in the study population was always lower than it is in the populations from observational studies.
So many studies don’t have a useful control group, don’t record enough significant variables (like comorbidities), don’t use random sampling, or even just don’t use good logic, or don’t have adequate protocols; let alone good data management and statistical techniques.
(I’ve seen an entire study undermined by one simple question that the researcher didn’t consider. Felt bad for that guy.)
0:16 This chart is reproduced from the UK Cass Report. It unaccountably stops just after 2016, and becauseof this it looks like an exponential rise. Had it shown data from subsequent years the chart would have shown a decline.
I feel as if a civil contract or waiver should be in place somehow. There are going to be TONS of legal issues should this go forward. Can child sue parent(s) later saying "they forced me"? Or lawsuit eligability if parents disagree, but one goes ahead with it anyway? Can somebody be held responsible if child commits sooiside (spelling for filter) because drugs didn't fix their dysphoria?
Making people into eunuchs
either by mental illness or omission of full consequences
Is by it's very definition -
E V I L
The NHS is a woke, ridiculous organisation. Making one good decision doesn't deserve too much praise.
Seems like they made this decision to save the NHS money. Man is the rationalising animal.
The UK is stereotypical for being quite transphobic, this is nothing special. Not saying it's a bad thing for puberty blockers for minors to be banned but the UK hates transgender people like in general they like the LGB, it's much more a culture thing there than in America
On Point on NPR has an amazing interview with Cass herself.
Diet can bring down high levels of estrogen and/ or testosterone. A study should compare hormone therapy to a low carb high fat diet.
those PBers were originally designed to *ahem* deactivate convicts of a very certain genre. then these PBers were used to treat kids going thru the change at an age where it would not be good for them.
@mistahsusan2650 what is pbers? I should have mentioned the necessity of having vitamin d at 50 in addition to low carb.
Food should be the first intervention.
@@Jeff-nine41149 the B stands for blockers. i don't wish to be obtuse but this seems to be the gauranteed way to not have my comments disappear.
So in other words, they have learned what we already knew.
Don't fix what isn't broken
Thanks for presenting this information
I really don't want to see Reddit right now after this
Reeeeeeeeeeeeee!
These are so much better than the freemedia segments. Those feel like watching a young-person’s Fox. Ew.
- Lies have to be reinforced -
especially when money is to
be made . . .
Any time an idea becomes a trend, there's going to be an upswing in related activity. This by itself doesn't tell us if transgender treatment is valid or not. But this does not mean we should radically change how medical treatments are handled, for a variety of reasons.
As it turned out, there's nothing there to prove that chemical castration of kids is a good thing
Here, instead of 11:40 video, we did the explanation in 10 seconds.
🙏🏻
The trans movement is an extension of the eugenics movement.
Why are you Conservatives here?
Explain plz. I’ve never heard this one before
The vast majority of kids who receive treatment woukd have grown up as homosexuals and they are being made infertile by the treatment. Sterilizing 'undesirable' traits is the entire point of eugenics.
the brits aren't so dumb after all
Weird NHS win.
Just because we had a very rare moment of sanity and common sense doesn't mean the politicians and systems are not completely nuts.
And I elected it for myself and will continue to use it. My body my decision!!! Period
If you're an adult, no one cares.
Pay full price without freeriding on our insurance while you're at it
I'm glad Reason is reporting on this because I feel like topics like these are libertarianism's achilles heel. "Free minds and free markets" doesn't really provide any kind of tangible answer to the issue of millions of kids all of a sudden now wanting puberty blockers. This is where I think many libertarians like myself go "alright, alright, let's not kid ourselves, end of day I'm really just a conservative."
Libertarianism works best in society when applied to economics and some culteral issues. Liberalism doesn’t really provide a solution to societal decay or collectivistation.
Libertarianism needs to account for the vulnerable and gullible being tricked into societal meatgrinders or it ends up at 'what if the child consents tho' lolberts.
Do you need to do any study at all to determine if such procedures are complete bonkers? I once heard that plastic surgeons don't like working on teenagers because their bodies are still growing! And now this!
PUBLIC HEALTH SYSTEMS ARE OFTEN ABUSED
Oh no!!!
dd
"Libertarians" who feel that they get to decide what others do with their bodies, you should be ashamed of yourselves!
Kids can't consent
@@SmartCreeper Who gets to make decisions on their behalf then?
If the State gets to make those decisions, I struggle to see why the State of California shouldn't force everyone to take puberty blockers and decide what puberty they want once they're old enough to make that decision...
@@chasemartin4450 no one. Giving kid puberty blockers is abusive.
@@SmartCreeper According to who? Did we not just live through a significant portion of our political leaders wanting to classify allowing your kids to *not* take the COVID vaccine as child abuse?
@@chasemartin4450 You fail to understand what the chemicals do. They are marketed as a safe 'pause button' but are nothing of the sort. Additionally, people get 'old enough to make decisions' because their brain and body matures.
You don't get 'old enough to make a decision' if you halt development of the body and brain.
*The secular West’s double standards are glaringly evident from how they deal with “irrationality”. When this so-called irrationality is linked with religion it’s a problem. However, when it comes to things like “gender fluidity” it’s completely fine. Another example that can be mentioned is how the “clairvoyant” Edgar Cayce was extremely popular during the early 20th-century.*
And it’s the same story when it comes to aliens. The secular West, unable to fight its innate tendency to believe in the ghayb, proposes the likely existence of a non-human species that could communicate with our world - the same way Muslims believe in the jinn
Of course, all of this is done in the name of their own religion: science. They even have their own priests in the form of astrobiologists, etc.
This belief of theirs is of the same nature as ours. Even if they try and add some pseudo-empiricist spice: there may be tangible elements pointing towards the existence of aliens They fail to grasp how we, too, say there are “tangible elements” regarding the influences of the jinn within our world.*
This comment exists as a fundamental misunderstanding of science in its entirety. Religion is based in blind faith and belief. Science is based purely on observation and open debate. Debate a priest on the matter of his religious beliefs and what you believe to be the truth, and he’d likely tell you to get out of his church. A scientist will correct you and provide explanation for his claim. Science is not dogma or religion. You don’t get to correct religion because it leaves no room for debate, lest you create an entirely new religious sect.
@@strangelyukrainian7314This is a profoundly ignorant comment. There are so many religious debates that you have access to right here on RUclips. And my local priest is a doctor of philosophy; I'm pretty sure he can make a good argument for his beliefs.
@@roinois
And none of those debates hold up when speaking on the matter of scientific facts.
The closest religion comes to being scientifically sound is general deism, which is the belief that the universe must have a distinct starting point and has a creator. But there is nothing to suggest that humanity is special in any way to such a creator, no matter how much religion may tell us that we are. I mean Christianity believes that we were literally modeled after God himself.
Regardless though, my overall point is not to needlessly shame people for their beliefs. People can believe whatever they want, but science is not anything like religion, unless you believe that humans can’t even believe what we observe everyday, at which point you may as well suggest we live in a simulation, which, if it were the case that we live in a simulated reality, it doesn’t even matter that it is a simulation.
That’s a tangent of course, but my original reply was purely in response to the laughable statement that science is religious in nature. It isn’t. Science is always changing and is always open to being challenged. Remember the last time someone challenged Catholicism? The entirety of Europe basically split in half, and then fragmented into dozens of smaller sects
@@strangelyukrainian7314 A few things I hope you consider:
While reason alone can only prove an abstract God's existence, historical evidence can demonstrate the existence of miracles like Marian Apparitions and the Resurrection of Jesus which point towards Christianity. Once mere Christianity is established, further investigation of historical testimony, linguistics, philosophy, and logic can bring you to the various dogmas of the faith. Those dogmas can also be challenged by the same means. This is what you see in Protestant vs Catholic debates.
Yes, Christianity teaches that Man is made in the image and likeness and God. Since God has no physical form, this is only to mean that human consciousness is like that of God. This can also be arrived at purely by reason through the argument of the intelligibility of the universe.
As for the possibility we live in a simulation, I actually would agree with Descartes in that the only thing that we cannot doubt is our own existence. To trust our own eyes and ears is an act of faith. To trust our ability to reason is an act of faith. Yes, all religion requires faith but so does all science.
All that being said, I do believe that science is a wonderful tool for arriving at truth about the physical world.
@@roinois
The historical evidence you speak of is largely hearsay unfortunately. It is not impossible for people to believe a person dead only to be wrong later, and given that card identification of people wasn’t really a thing in ancient times, any number of explanations could exist for why Jesus may have “come back from the dead”.
And the Bible itself is not even consistent in itself, as many different versions of it exist, and even the different books within the Bible contradict each other many times.
This is all however semantics, as there is equally as much evidence for the existence of Allah, or pagan gods, or no god at all and just an afterlife, or no god and no afterlife. The simple fact is that nobody dies and then comes back to life with an account of what the afterlife is, or if there even is one, and so nobody knows beyond the hearsay of history, which is as unreliable as it gets, because if we’re completely honest, everyone has an agenda, and some people are perfectly willing to be dishonest to further an agenda.
Good now punish the manufacturers
Found the big government conservative
It should be a private family matter without government intervention
Just curious, would you say the same if the parents were sharing their alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and fentanyl with their children?
no, government should intervene to protect the right of children against the use of force from parents or doctors or themselfs. A child is not an adult thus doesn't have the same rights as an adult. Children aren't allowed to drink alcohol or drive cars, or join the army; the state protects them from those things which they are not ready to fully understand and make rational decisions about.
Drugging your kids with puberty blockers is called child abuse and is not a private matter.
Considering that the UK has a NHS, technically, the entire public is paying for this, so they deserve a say since it's their money
Ypu mean parents should be able to prostitute their children as long as it is a family affair. No gov involvement. lol
Science is not "by vote"
This is "scientism" the religion
For atheists ⚛️
Just because stomach cells belong in the stomach,doesn't mean they dont belong in the arteries,just because arterial cells belong in the arteries doesn't mean they don't belong in spinal fluid . . .
Thats prejudice & you know what that means!!!😂😂😂
If I'm old enough to go through puberty I'm old enough to choose not to
Damn right! And especially when the State will deem you "adult" enough to charge you as an adult in court, you deserve 100% control over how you want your body to develop.
Wrong. Precisely because of puberty (the brain is still developing) you cannot legally make important choices, including stuff that affects your body,
Pictures of the brain in action show that adolescents' brains work differently than adults when they make decisions or solve problems. Their actions are guided more by the emotional and reactive amygdala and less by the thoughtful, logical frontal cortex.
You aren't old enough to drink a beer, you definitely cannot be trusted to make irreparable changes to your physiology.
I definitely was not old enough to determine that I didn’t want to go through puberty when I got my first period in the 5th grade. Some girls get theirs as early as nine. You think nine year olds can consent to be on puberty blockers?
They handed put puberty blockers like they did psychotropic and ADHD drugs back in 90s and 2000s like they were candy.
speaking of the 90's... imagine if they treated the eating disorder epidemic the same way they're treating the "trans" epidemic. "if you think you should weigh 40 pounds, then you should. here's some meth that should help" or "if you think it's healthy to vomit up your food right after you eat it, it must be. here's a pill that will help you barf"
WHEN YOU DO NOT HAVE RESPONSIBLE DOCTORS 🥼 $$$ MORE IMPORTANT