-11
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2023
-11 points (39.2% liked)
science
14464 readers
717 users here now
just science related topics. please contribute
note: clickbait sources/headlines aren't liked generally. I've posted crap sources and later deleted or edit to improve after complaints. whoops, sry
Rule 1) Be kind.
lemmy.world rules: https://mastodon.world/about
I don't screen everything, lrn2scroll
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I’m not giving the Economist my info to read this. However, you know what’s a lot less safe than puberty blockers? Teenage suicidality. I’m not trans, but I was a very suicidal teenager, and if trans people say puberty blockers make them safer and less suicidal, I believe them, and we should do everything we can to reduce the number of teens that feel that way. Including puberty blockers. They’re reversible, safe (we’ve been giving them to kids for conventional medical reasons for a long time), and the community affected says they help. How many kids are we willing to let die while we’re waiting for more evidence?
So - I'm actually not saying we need to ban this use of these drugs until it's been studied more. The honest truth is, I have no idea about that side of it; my only real opinion on it is that it would be a really good thing to study them in a lot of detail and then make the recommendation based on that.
That's what bothers me more than anything about the whole conversation. It's like this reaction of "Well you must be the ENEMY, you really hate trans people and you're just LYING about wanting to study the drugs, even you being allowed to say that is TERRIBLY DANGEROUS. Just approve the drugs, they're clearly safe, because I say so, and if you disagree there's something TERRIBLY WRONG WITH YOU." I don't know how else to say it: I am not the enemy, I don't think.
As far as I can tell, the Economist article is saying that the drugs haven't been studied in adolescents as much as would be reasonable. I took a bunch of time to look over @sphenoid's sources in detail, because it's important to me, and my overall conclusion was in agreement with that statement. So I took time to respond, giving a bunch of detail from my own desire to know more about it, and then the conversation ended.
It just seems weird that my whole viewpoint is "the enemy" and engenders this kind of hatred because everyone assumes that the reasons I'm saying it are borne out of some kind of hatred on my side.
Gee, maybe it’s because we’re talking about a group that’s extremely vulnerable, a group that a lot of people are determined to commit democide against. Even if you feel how you feel for completely innocent reasons, it’s reasonable for people to assume otherwise. Lots of extremists start out sounding vaguely reasonable.
Yeah I get that. The initial reasonable assumption I 100% understand. But I also think a vulnerable community that makes a habit of lashing out and accusing of crypto-democide anyone who's showing good faith, but just not willing to 100% agree with them on everything without any discussion permitted, is going to find itself more vulnerable and demonized as a result, not less.
The thing of "you have to agree with me or else you're the enemy" isn't a good way to go, whether you're in the majority or the minority. Again I get the reasons why people arrived there. I'm just saying it's not a good place to be.
I was talking about the reaction I was getting in this thread, not anything from any outside source.