I'm so torn on the state bans. On one hand, I fear that as long as there are large numbers of informed consent adult clinics, the bans will have the unintended consequence of even more teens rushing to start hormones the moment they turn 18 as a middle finger to the state and a grand statement it wasn't "just a phase" and now they are adults. On the other hand, there was a doctor who spoke at Genspect about how software tracking opioid prescriptions across settings gave doctors the moral backbone to say not to belligerent or demanding patients. Jamie Reed has made the excellent observation that there's no script, no pathway for a doctor to say "no." Maybe laws can provide that? This is situation where we need to see the data on what happens in states with and without band when kids turn 18
I broadly agree, except that we don't really know because this is experimental medicine, and no one is required to keep track. That's why the stories of detransitioners are so important. They capture more of the real-life issues, such as no longer feeling attracted to anyone. Human beings live and die by stories
Could there be a new diagnosis created/ named/ discovered that was close to GID/GD but it was a transient identity and would resolve with time and/or the help of therapy.
What if it looked so much like GID/GD that clinicians had to spend time with patients making sure which was which.
What the standards of care for this and treatment practices did not support medical interventions because of its transience.
Could this not be done since the DSM has made changes to the GID?
This is embarrassing, but this was so good I am trembling.
My question is about policy. I actually agree with a point that Chris Christie made at one point, which is that it's a mistake to criminalize parents in an attempt to stop medicalization. Parents' authority and rights are so eroded that *any* assault on that will harm all parents. My question is why can't just ban this as harmful for children (and maybe adults too). If a parent demanded that a doctor perform a lobotomy on their child would we do it? I don't know if it's strictly illegal but there is a hard line. Why can't we very specifically legislate that hard line. Why is there so much interest in being punitive with parents?
I feel that we need to have more detailed descriptions of the risks - laundry lists do not work. I was surprised to hear my adult kids didn't know what incontinence meant! Given that it affects 20-25% of those who undergo genital surgery, it seems like informed consent must be more descriptive maybe, "X% of patients who undergo this surgery experience long-term incontinence, which is an inability to control their bladder. This occurs because of scarring to the Y. They often face a lifetime of wearing diapers."
I did listen to the memory hole podcast and I thought it was very interesting but I felt it was flawed in its critique of Freud. The critique was based on work that Freud did early in his career, and later moved away from. It also assumes that he somehow intended to set up the world of psychoanalysis as it is now when he undertook his earliest work. They seem to take some Freudian terms at face value - a common misreading of Freud - and fail to account for the development of wider field of psychology, psychiatry and psychoanalysis and how it was disseminated in popular culture in the 20th century. I think the underlying point -that a misreading of psychoanalysis seeded a fantasy that quickly became a collective fantasy through social contagion - stands but it seems that it could be counterproductive to blame it entirely on Freud as they seem to do, and underplay other elements such as the marketing practices of companies selling products like self help books.
I'm so torn on the state bans. On one hand, I fear that as long as there are large numbers of informed consent adult clinics, the bans will have the unintended consequence of even more teens rushing to start hormones the moment they turn 18 as a middle finger to the state and a grand statement it wasn't "just a phase" and now they are adults. On the other hand, there was a doctor who spoke at Genspect about how software tracking opioid prescriptions across settings gave doctors the moral backbone to say not to belligerent or demanding patients. Jamie Reed has made the excellent observation that there's no script, no pathway for a doctor to say "no." Maybe laws can provide that? This is situation where we need to see the data on what happens in states with and without band when kids turn 18
I broadly agree, except that we don't really know because this is experimental medicine, and no one is required to keep track. That's why the stories of detransitioners are so important. They capture more of the real-life issues, such as no longer feeling attracted to anyone. Human beings live and die by stories
Could there be a new diagnosis created/ named/ discovered that was close to GID/GD but it was a transient identity and would resolve with time and/or the help of therapy.
What if it looked so much like GID/GD that clinicians had to spend time with patients making sure which was which.
What the standards of care for this and treatment practices did not support medical interventions because of its transience.
Could this not be done since the DSM has made changes to the GID?
Transient identity consolidation disorder, maybe.
This is embarrassing, but this was so good I am trembling.
My question is about policy. I actually agree with a point that Chris Christie made at one point, which is that it's a mistake to criminalize parents in an attempt to stop medicalization. Parents' authority and rights are so eroded that *any* assault on that will harm all parents. My question is why can't just ban this as harmful for children (and maybe adults too). If a parent demanded that a doctor perform a lobotomy on their child would we do it? I don't know if it's strictly illegal but there is a hard line. Why can't we very specifically legislate that hard line. Why is there so much interest in being punitive with parents?
I feel that we need to have more detailed descriptions of the risks - laundry lists do not work. I was surprised to hear my adult kids didn't know what incontinence meant! Given that it affects 20-25% of those who undergo genital surgery, it seems like informed consent must be more descriptive maybe, "X% of patients who undergo this surgery experience long-term incontinence, which is an inability to control their bladder. This occurs because of scarring to the Y. They often face a lifetime of wearing diapers."
Also see carol tavris' essay sounding the alarm in spring 2022....she help uncover the recovered memories scandal and stop it
https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/transgender-reality-i-didnt-know-there-was-another-side/
I did listen to the memory hole podcast and I thought it was very interesting but I felt it was flawed in its critique of Freud. The critique was based on work that Freud did early in his career, and later moved away from. It also assumes that he somehow intended to set up the world of psychoanalysis as it is now when he undertook his earliest work. They seem to take some Freudian terms at face value - a common misreading of Freud - and fail to account for the development of wider field of psychology, psychiatry and psychoanalysis and how it was disseminated in popular culture in the 20th century. I think the underlying point -that a misreading of psychoanalysis seeded a fantasy that quickly became a collective fantasy through social contagion - stands but it seems that it could be counterproductive to blame it entirely on Freud as they seem to do, and underplay other elements such as the marketing practices of companies selling products like self help books.
Great book by neurologist Suzanne O’Sullivan called The Sleeping Beauties
About social contagions around the world. She looks at it from a medical and societal perspective.
These contagions operate as an escape valve to express something which is ‘unspeakable’ in a culture