• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

SRS Results Tend to be Skewed

calamity said:
So, then why bother with the surgery? After all, they'll still be ostracized and commit suicide anyway. :roll:

Methinks you missed the whole point of the article.
Click to expand...

omg is it so hard to grasp that they might have LOWER rates after surgery? That SOME of them will benefit? It's like an antidepressant works for some but not all, or hell a flu shot works for some but not all. Anyway, unless you plan to get a sex change, it's none of your business

Hell, you go into threads like the 'reparative therapy' insisting it's the individual's choice, self-determination blahblah, now you come here and say what, SRS should be banned, commence the nanny state? What is your purpose exactly?
 
instagramsci said:
A Harvard education does not preclude someone from being wrong
Click to expand...

or from being an opportunist who relies on others' gullibility and prejudices - see: ted cruz
 
LowDown said:
I've never met a tranny who wasn't a psychological basket case, usually with multiple psychiatric problems before and after coming out of which a tranny identity is just one manifestation.

There has been a very big gender clinic at Johns Hopkins for many years. They did sex change surgery starting in the 1960s but eventually found out that patients didn't benefit from the surgery and so they stopped doing it. Now the former head of psychiatry in that program is saying that the surgery was a mistake. Transsexuals need psychotherapy not surgery, he says.

They got similar results in the Karolinska Institute in Sweden. They found that sex change patients ran into tremendous psychological problems about 10 years after the change associated with a 20 fold increase in suicide.

Paul McHugh: Transgender Surgery Isn't the Solution - WSJ
Click to expand...

I am far from the most sensitive person on this issue but even I can appreciate that the term "tranny" is just a slur intended to convey disrespect.
 
X Factor said:
I am far from the most sensitive person on this issue but even I can appreciate that the term "tranny" is just a slur intended to convey disrespect.
Click to expand...
I think he knew that full well and that's why he used it
 
chromium said:
omg is it so hard to grasp that they might have LOWER rates after surgery? That SOME of them will benefit? It's like an antidepressant works for some but not all, or hell a flu shot works for some but not all. Anyway, unless you plan to get a sex change, it's none of your business

Hell, you go into threads like the 'reparative therapy' insisting it's the individual's choice, self-determination blahblah, now you come here and say what, SRS should be banned, commence the nanny state? What is your purpose exactly?
Click to expand...
I clearly said conversion therapy is quack medicine. Reread my statements in that thread. I said spiritual classes aimed at curbing sexual behavior were protected by the establishment clause in first amendment, but they could not call it "therapy."

I hope you understand the difference between religious counsel and medical treatment, and know why one is given much leeway and the other heavily regulated, even prohibiting some treatments by law. My arguments are consistent with that reality.
 
X Factor said:
I am far from the most sensitive person on this issue but even I can appreciate that the term "tranny" is just a slur intended to convey disrespect.
Click to expand...

No disrespect intended. Many people would regard "transsexual" as a slur, even if it is more clinical sounding.
 
LowDown said:
No disrespect intended. Many people would regard "transsexual" as a slur, even if it is more clinical sounding.
Click to expand...

Transgendered works quit fine, tranny is just low brow insulting.
 
X Factor said:
I am far from the most sensitive person on this issue but even I can appreciate that the term "tranny" is just a slur intended to convey disrespect.
Click to expand...

i actually didn't know that until kinda recently
 
calamity said:
I clearly said conversion therapy is quack medicine. Reread my statements in that thread. I said spiritual classes aimed at curbing sexual behavior were protected by the establishment clause in first amendment, but they could not call it "therapy."

I hope you understand the difference between religious counsel and medical treatment, and know why one is given much leeway and the other heavily regulated, even prohibiting some treatments by law. My arguments are consistent with that reality.
Click to expand...

quack medicine that the patient consents to - what you call SRS - is far from heavily regulated, and 'conversion therapy' so rarely stops at "religious counsel" that it isn't even worth mentioning
 
If the patients themselves claim to be much better off after the surgery and report a great deal of satisfaction and relief with the results, where the **** do you get off telling them that the surgery is actually bad for them?
 
X Factor said:
Yeah, well, I'm not the insensitive clod that you are. :2razz:

(You know I'm joking.)
Click to expand...

Where i'm from there was no awareness of this subject, so the word was never used. First time i heard it, i just assumed it was shorthand for transgender, so i started using it myself (lol) until someone told me off, like a 5 year old repeating profanity he overheard
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
If the patients themselves claim to be much better off after the surgery and report a great deal of satisfaction and relief with the results, where the **** do you get off telling them that the surgery is actually bad for them?
Click to expand...

Uh...I knew several people with various kinds of cancer who turned down Chemo and went with a naturopathic solution. All of them felt great....until they died about a year later. The patients who chose chemo? They felt like crap for a year, but ten years later--guess what?--they are still alive.

Does that give you a clue as to why we can't just go by the subjective opinions of the patient?
 
calamity said:
Uh...I knew several people with various kinds of cancer who turned down Chemo and went with a naturopathic solution. All of them felt great....until they died about a year later. The patients who chose chemo? They felt like crap for a year, but ten years later--guess what?--they are still alive.

Does that give you a clue as to why we can't just go by the subjective opinions of the patient?
Click to expand...
I've got an apple and an orange I'd like you to compare
 
instagramsci said:
I've got an apple and an orange I'd like you to compare
Click to expand...

Not really. The issue came up because someone claimed that since the patient subjectively "felt better" after treatment, the lack of long term objective studies is not a problem. So, we should all just shut up and move along.
 
calamity said:
Uh...I knew several people with various kinds of cancer who turned down Chemo and went with a naturopathic solution. All of them felt great....until they died about a year later. The patients who chose chemo? They felt like crap for a year, but ten years later--guess what?--they are still alive.

Does that give you a clue as to why we can't just go by the subjective opinions of the patient?
Click to expand...

And some people prefer quality of life over quantity of life. There are many people who are just tired of going through treatments that hurt them, cause them to miss out on their time, and would prefer to spend the time they have actually living life, rather than trying to buy themselves more years that they don't necessarily get.
 
calamity said:
Not really. The issue came up because someone claimed that since the patient subjectively "felt better" after treatment, the lack of long term objective studies is not a problem. So, we should all just shut up and move along.
Click to expand...

Because they are living their lives, which is theirs to live, the way they want to live it, not yours.
 
roguenuke said:
Because they are living their lives, which is theirs to live, the way they want to live it, not yours.
Click to expand...
I'm beginning to think there really is a phobia attached to this. I'll Never understand why people think they need to involve themselves in this kind of thing. If you don't like the idea that people are trans, then don't like it. Why do we need to constantly rehash the causation of the insecurities of these people?
 
roguenuke said:
And some people prefer quality of life over quantity of life. There are many people who are just tired of going through treatments that hurt them, cause them to miss out on their time, and would prefer to spend the time they have actually living life, rather than trying to buy themselves more years that they don't necessarily get.
Click to expand...

Medicine requires objective research and quantitative measurements. Let's not over PC this by throwing in a bunch of subjective nonsense about people saying they "feel good." The SRS therapies are lacking in objective data and research. That's exactly what the article in the OP states, rather well, actually.
 
calamity said:
Medicine requires objective research and quantitative measurements. Let's not over PC this by throwing in a bunch of subjective nonsense about people saying they "feel good." The SRS therapies are lacking in objective data and research. That's exactly what the article in the OP states, rather well, actually.
Click to expand...
What objective data could there be about how a person feels if their feelings don't matter?
 
CLAX1911 said:
What objective data could there be about how a person feels if their feelings don't matter?
Click to expand...

That would be subjective data. Objective data has nothing to do with self-reporting, which is unreliable and subjective.
 
CLAX1911 said:
What objective data could there be about how a person feels if their feelings don't matter?
Click to expand...

To add: I guess what they are looking for is removing the subjective appraisal on how one feels by evaluating long term results such as reduced criminality, morbidity and mental dysfunction, as defined by reduced suicide attempts and other objective measurables relating to mental health.
 
calamity said:
That would be subjective data. Objective data has nothing to do with self-reporting, which is unreliable and subjective.
Click to expand...

Right, it would be subjective data. The question I asked is how do you get objective days about how somebody feels? You can't collect anything without knowing first how they feel. So please explain the method of collecting this objective data?

Demanding something that can never exist isn't really an argument. It's circular logic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom