Trans in Sports

[UNI88]

She's attempting to affirm her gender as female thus it's gender affirming care. Plastic surgey, botox, ED medications, hair regrowth - all gender affirming care.

I hope you are not serious with this statement, but never sure.

Gender-affirming care is any medical or sometimes non-medical care that helps a person’s body or appearance align with their gender identity or gendered self-image. It’s not inherently about being trans, and it’s not limited to hormones or surgery.

A nose job to breathe better is not gender-affirming, a nose job to look more feminine or masculine is gender-affirming.

[BDKJMU]

I hope you are not serious with this statement, but never sure.

Gender-affirming care is any medical or sometimes non-medical care that helps a person’s body or appearance align with their gender identity or gendered self-image. It’s not inherently about being trans, and it’s not limited to hormones or surgery.

A nose job to breathe better is not gender-affirming, a nose job to look more feminine or masculine is gender-affirming.

All of that and sex changing hormone treatments and genital mutilation are fine as a choice: FOR ADULTS.

[UNI88]

Gender-affirming care is any medical or sometimes non-medical care that helps a person’s body or appearance align with their gender identity or gendered self-image. It’s not inherently about being trans, and it’s not limited to hormones or surgery.

A nose job to breathe better is not gender-affirming, a nose job to look more feminine or masculine is gender-affirming.

All of that and sex changing hormone treatments and genital mutilation are fine as a choice: FOR ADULTS.

What about parents' rights? Or does that only apply if they raise children the way MAQA wants them to, not the right to choose any legal, doctor-recommended care?

[SeattleGriz]

All of that and sex changing hormone treatments and genital mutilation are fine as a choice: FOR ADULTS.

What about parents' rights? Or does that only apply if they raise children the way MAQA wants them to, not the right to choose any legal, doctor-recommended care?

What doctors recommend it and where are the studies backing it's efficacy? This is where we step out of feelz and into science and medicine.

[UNI88]

What about parents' rights? Or does that only apply if they raise children the way MAQA wants them to, not the right to choose any legal, doctor-recommended care?

What doctors recommend it and where are the studies backing it's efficacy? This is where we step out of feelz and into science and medicine.

Study: Gender-affirming hormones improve mental health in transgender and nonbinary youth

Evidence from largest study in U.S. on the impact of gender-affirming hormones, with longest follow-up

Beyond Case Reports: The Data-Driven Truth About Gender-Affirming Care for Transgender Youth

When it comes to gender-affirming care for transgender youth, the conversation is often dominated by emotional stories and anecdotal evidence, leaving little room for objective data. Media coverage tends to focus on case reports designed to pull at the heartstrings on either side of the debate. But what happens when we step back from the headlines and focus on the hard numbers?
...
The research comes from the Trans Youth Project (TYP), a long-term study that recruited participants between 2013 and 2017—individuals who had socially transitioned but had not yet begun medical treatment. In 2023, these participants (now 12 or older) and their parents were surveyed about their experiences with gender-affirming care. Of the 220 respondents, 163 were youth, and 57 were parents. The average time on puberty blockers was 4.86 years, and the average time on hormone therapy was 3.4 years. Sixty-nine additional participant data was obtained from previously identified information.

The mean age was 16.07 years, and at “last interaction,” 31% were boys, 60% were girls, and 9% were gender-diverse or nonbinary. Satisfaction and regret were assessed on a 7-point scale, reported for values between 5 and 7, above the scale midpoint.

• Overall, participants were statistically unlikely to express dissatisfaction or regret.
• Only 3% of the youth expressed dissatisfaction with puberty blockers, and 6% regretted using them. For hormone therapy, 3% were dissatisfied, and 4% expressed regret.
• 6% of parents were dissatisfied with puberty blockers, and an equal percentage regretted their use. Notably, no parents expressed dissatisfaction or regret regarding hormone therapy.
• The overwhelming majority of youth and parents felt the timing of interventions was right, with many wishing they had started earlier. Fewer than 6% believed the treatment began too soon or should never have occurred.

These results provide a much-needed counterpoint to the often heated and polarized debate. While regret and dissatisfaction exist, at roughly 6%, they are relatively rare. Notably, the study also found that regret, a stronger emotional response than dissatisfaction, did not necessarily lead to treatment discontinuation—half of the youth who expressed regret continued with therapy.

The researchers concluded:

“…a large cohort of early-transitioning transgender youth and their parents reported very high levels of satisfaction and low levels of regret with this care. The overwhelming majority have continued gender-affirming care.”

The greatest satisfaction for most participants came from the physical changes brought about by hormonal manipulation, while the most dislikes related to treatment administration, e.g., pain or bad experiences. While not expressed as a limitation, the researchers point out a unique feature of their cohort.

“Most showed signs of their transgender identity by 4 years of age. On average, they socially transitioned at age 6.7 years, and most were fairly binary in their gender identities and gender expressions throughout childhood. Early-identifying youth who are especially insistent about their identities are also more likely to socially transition in childhood and identify as transgender or continue to show gender dysphoria in adolescence and early adulthood.

AAP speaks out against HHS report on gender dysphoria, infringement on physician-patient relationship

AAP leaders say they are “deeply concerned” about a new government report on caring for transgender and gender-diverse youths. Medical society leaders also are defending the physician-patient relationship from political interference.
...
“This report misrepresents the current medical consensus and fails to reflect the realities of pediatric care,” Dr. Kressly said in a statement. “As we have seen with immunizations, bypassing medical expertise and scientific evidence has real consequences for the health of America's children. AAP was not consulted in the development of this report, yet our policy and intentions behind our recommendations were cited throughout in inaccurate and misleading ways. The report prioritizes opinions over dispassionate reviews of evidence.”
...
“Patients, their families, and their physicians—not politicians or government officials —should be the ones to make decisions together about what care is best for them based on evidence-based, age-appropriate care,” she said. “… The AAP remains focused on supporting pediatricians in delivering the best possible care to every child, informed by science and the lived experiences of patients and families. We will continue to support the well-being of all children and access to high-quality care that meets their needs.”

American Psychiatric Association Position Statement on Gender-Affirming Care for TransgenderYouth

1. Families and youth should have access to the full range of gender-affirming treatment options, and the decision-making process should remain within the purview of families, youth, and their physician- led clinical teams.
2. The decision-making process should be deliberate and supportive, and inclusive of: access tomental health resources; informed consent; education about the risks, benefits, and alternatives to treatment; and the risks and benefits of withholding care

AMA reinforces opposition to restrictions on transgender medical care

“The AMA opposes the dangerous intrusion of government into the practice of medicine and the criminalization of health care decision-making,” said AMA Board Member Michael Suk, MD, JD, MPH, MBA. “Gender-affirming care is medically-necessary, evidence-based care that improves the physical and mental health of transgender and gender-diverse people.”

What about parents' rights? Or does that only apply if they raise children the way MAQA wants them to, not the right to choose any legal, doctor-recommended care?

[kalm]

The left celebrates this.

Celebrate it?

I didn’t know about it. There are many where a male has an unfair advantage over a female. From my own orofession, Annika Sorenstan’s performance at a PGA tour event is an example.

I’m just obsessed by people parts like you. I guess.

[SeattleGriz]

What doctors recommend it and where are the studies backing it's efficacy? This is where we step out of feelz and into science and medicine.

Study: Gender-affirming hormones improve mental health in transgender and nonbinary youth

Evidence from largest study in U.S. on the impact of gender-affirming hormones, with longest follow-up

What about parents' rights? Or does that only apply if they raise children the way MAQA wants them to, not the right to choose any legal, doctor-recommended care?

Let's just start with this first study you have listed. Critics of this study have said that while it helped how they felt about their physical looks, improvements in depression and anxiety were small. In addition, a significant amount were taking psychotropic drugs and receiving therapy as well. Two huge confounders in which you don't know if they were the reason for improvements or not. And lastly, no control group. These factors alone bring into question the validity of the study.

Then we have Dr Olson-Kennedy listed as a senior author. This is the Dr who got the 10 million dollar NIH grant to follow 95 kids who received puberty blockers. She refuses to publish her findings. It's because the children showed no significant improvement in mental health after two years. That speaks to the integrity of Dr Olson Kennedy. Won't publish a study because she couldn't prove her bias. She's advocating a course of medicine based upon hunches, not quantifiable science. The irony of her mentioning her study combats misinformation (Two different studies, btw).

"The critical results we report demonstrate the positive psychological impact of gender-affirming hormones for treatment of youth with gender dysphoria,” said senior author Johanna Olson-Kennedy, MD, Medical Director of the Center for Transyouth Health and Development at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles. “Amidst a landscape of misinformation, we hope these findings support the use of timely and appropriate medical interventions for this vulnerable group of adolescents."

I bring all this up, because it leads us to the Cass Review.

The Cass Review, published in April 2024 by Dr. Hilary Cass, was a comprehensive independent review of gender identity services for children and young people in the UK National Health Service (NHS).

Its central conclusion was that the evidence base supporting medical interventions for gender-distressed youth is "remarkably weak" and that children were being treated with a medical pathway (puberty blockers and hormones) based on insufficient data regarding long-term safety and effectiveness

https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov ... al-report/

Lastly. The one absolute wild card in all this is the autism aspect. I refer to the "autism" doctors in the field as witch doctors because they are never right. Hell, even other autistics have been wrong when consulted. Autism is such a wild card in this equation.

You do know the gender affirming medical establishment preys upon the autistic? Couple this with parents that will do just about anything if they believe it will help their autistic child and you create a bad choice environment. Dash in some transhausen mom's and it's really bad.

The actual science cannot say gender affirming care, in the aspect of hormone therapy, is a benefit. We'd all be much better off if we went back to our old medical model in which we didn't experiment on our children. Let them age out of childhood and when everything stabilizes as an adult, let them make their own choice. Until then, therapy and assistance where possible.

[UNI88]

Study: Gender-affirming hormones improve mental health in transgender and nonbinary youth

What about parents' rights? Or does that only apply if they raise children the way MAQA wants them to, not the right to choose any legal, doctor-recommended care?

Let's just start with this first study you have listed. Critics of this study have said that while it helped how they felt about their physical looks, improvements in depression and anxiety were small. In addition, a significant amount were taking psychotropic drugs and receiving therapy as well. Two huge confounders in which you don't know if they were the reason for improvements or not. And lastly, no control group. These factors alone bring into question the validity of the study.

Then we have Dr Olson-Kennedy listed as a senior author. This is the Dr who got the 10 million dollar NIH grant to follow 95 kids who received puberty blockers. She refuses to publish her findings. It's because the children showed no significant improvement in mental health after two years. That speaks to the integrity of Dr Olson Kennedy. Won't publish a study because she couldn't prove her bias. She's advocating a course of medicine based upon hunches, not quantifiable science. The irony of her mentioning her study combats misinformation (Two different studies, btw).

"The critical results we report demonstrate the positive psychological impact of gender-affirming hormones for treatment of youth with gender dysphoria,” said senior author Johanna Olson-Kennedy, MD, Medical Director of the Center for Transyouth Health and Development at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles. “Amidst a landscape of misinformation, we hope these findings support the use of timely and appropriate medical interventions for this vulnerable group of adolescents."

I bring all this up, because it leads us to the Cass Review.

The Cass Review, published in April 2024 by Dr. Hilary Cass, was a comprehensive independent review of gender identity services for children and young people in the UK National Health Service (NHS).

Its central conclusion was that the evidence base supporting medical interventions for gender-distressed youth is "remarkably weak" and that children were being treated with a medical pathway (puberty blockers and hormones) based on insufficient data regarding long-term safety and effectiveness

https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov ... al-report/

Lastly. The one absolute wild card in all this is the autism aspect. I refer to the "autism" doctors in the field as witch doctors because they are never right. Hell, even other autistics have been wrong when consulted. Autism is such a wild card in this equation.

You do know the gender affirming medical establishment preys upon the autistic? Couple this with parents that will do just about anything if they believe it will help their autistic child and you create a bad choice environment. Dash in some transhausen mom's and it's really bad.

The actual science cannot say gender affirming care, in the aspect of hormone therapy, is a benefit. We'd all be much better off if we went back to our old medical model in which we didn't experiment on our children. Let them age out of childhood and when everything stabilizes as an adult, let them make their own choice. Until then, therapy and assistance where possible.

I asked ChatGPT for some help refining my thoughts and then I had it "potato" the response so here you go ...

Yes, much of the evidence around gender-affirming care for youth is observational, includes confounders like therapy and SSRIs, shows modest effect sizes, and lacks randomized control groups. That’s a limitation of this field, and no serious medical body denies it. But lack of perfect evidence is not the same as evidence of no benefit or of harm. In pediatric and psychiatric medicine, stabilization or prevention of worsening outcomes can itself be clinically meaningful, even when improvements aren’t dramatic.

On Olson-Kennedy: the NIH puberty-blocker study you reference showed no significant improvement on some mental-health measures over two years — not deterioration. Non-publication of null or mixed findings is common across medicine and, by itself, doesn’t demonstrate fraud or bad faith. Criticize advocacy if you want, but that’s different from proving the science was fabricated.

The Cass Review likewise does not conclude that gender-affirming care is ineffective or abusive. Its core finding is that the evidence base is limited and heterogeneous and that care should be cautious, individualized, and better studied. That position is broadly aligned with U.S. medical organizations, which also do not claim the science is settled — only that care should remain available under physician-led, case-by-case judgment rather than categorical bans.

Which brings me to parental rights.

I support childhood vaccines like measles primarily because they protect the child from serious, well-documented harm; public health benefits are additional, not the sole justification. If the principle is that the state may override parents when there is strong evidence an intervention prevents serious harm to a child, that makes sense — and vaccines clearly meet that bar.

But if the standard becomes “evidence is imperfect or controversial, therefore parents lose the right to decide with their child’s physician,” then parental rights are far weaker than people admit, and that rule won’t stop with gender-affirming care. Many of the same political movements arguing to override parents here strongly oppose vaccine mandates there, despite vastly stronger evidence.

So what’s the consistent rule?

Either parents, in consultation with licensed physicians, retain medical decision-making authority even when evidence is evolving — or the state substitutes its judgment whenever a medical decision becomes politically unpopular. You can argue for higher evidentiary standards and better data (I agree). But selectively removing parental rights in one domain while defending them in another isn’t a scientific position — it’s an ideological one.

[BDKJMU]

The left celebrates this.

Celebrate it?

I didn’t know about it. There are many where a male has an unfair advantage over a female. From my own orofession, Annika Sorenstan’s performance at a PGA tour event is an example.

I’m just obsessed by people parts like you. I guess.

Men should play vs other men.
Women should play vs other women.
SIMPLE.

I‘m just not obsessed about allowing men to play women’s sports like you.

[kalm]

Celebrate it?

I didn’t know about it. There are many where a male has an unfair advantage over a female. From my own orofession, Annika Sorenstan’s performance at a PGA tour event is an example.

I’m just obsessed by people parts like you. I guess.

Men should play vs other men.
Women should play vs other women.
SIMPLE.

I‘m just not obsessed about allowing men to play women’s sports like you.

I know. You’re more obsessed with male genitalia and that’s ok. You be you.

[BDKJMU]

Men should play vs other men.
Women should play vs other women.
SIMPLE.

I‘m just not obsessed about allowing men to play women’s sports like you.

I know. You’re more obsessed with male genitalia and that’s ok. You be you.

Wrong.

And I‘m not for discriminating against women in sports like you are. But you be you.

[SeattleGriz]

Let's just start with this first study you have listed. Critics of this study have said that while it helped how they felt about their physical looks, improvements in depression and anxiety were small. In addition, a significant amount were taking psychotropic drugs and receiving therapy as well. Two huge confounders in which you don't know if they were the reason for improvements or not. And lastly, no control group. These factors alone bring into question the validity of the study.

Then we have Dr Olson-Kennedy listed as a senior author. This is the Dr who got the 10 million dollar NIH grant to follow 95 kids who received puberty blockers. She refuses to publish her findings. It's because the children showed no significant improvement in mental health after two years. That speaks to the integrity of Dr Olson Kennedy. Won't publish a study because she couldn't prove her bias. She's advocating a course of medicine based upon hunches, not quantifiable science. The irony of her mentioning her study combats misinformation (Two different studies, btw).



I bring all this up, because it leads us to the Cass Review.



https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov ... al-report/

Lastly. The one absolute wild card in all this is the autism aspect. I refer to the "autism" doctors in the field as witch doctors because they are never right. Hell, even other autistics have been wrong when consulted. Autism is such a wild card in this equation.

You do know the gender affirming medical establishment preys upon the autistic? Couple this with parents that will do just about anything if they believe it will help their autistic child and you create a bad choice environment. Dash in some transhausen mom's and it's really bad.

The actual science cannot say gender affirming care, in the aspect of hormone therapy, is a benefit. We'd all be much better off if we went back to our old medical model in which we didn't experiment on our children. Let them age out of childhood and when everything stabilizes as an adult, let them make their own choice. Until then, therapy and assistance where possible.

I asked ChatGPT for some help refining my thoughts and then I had it "potato" the response so here you go ...

Yes, much of the evidence around gender-affirming care for youth is observational, includes confounders like therapy and SSRIs, shows modest effect sizes, and lacks randomized control groups. That’s a limitation of this field, and no serious medical body denies it. But lack of perfect evidence is not the same as evidence of no benefit or of harm. In pediatric and psychiatric medicine, stabilization or prevention of worsening outcomes can itself be clinically meaningful, even when improvements aren’t dramatic.

On Olson-Kennedy: the NIH puberty-blocker study you reference showed no significant improvement on some mental-health measures over two years — not deterioration. Non-publication of null or mixed findings is common across medicine and, by itself, doesn’t demonstrate fraud or bad faith. Criticize advocacy if you want, but that’s different from proving the science was fabricated.

The Cass Review likewise does not conclude that gender-affirming care is ineffective or abusive. Its core finding is that the evidence base is limited and heterogeneous and that care should be cautious, individualized, and better studied. That position is broadly aligned with U.S. medical organizations, which also do not claim the science is settled — only that care should remain available under physician-led, case-by-case judgment rather than categorical bans.

Which brings me to parental rights.

I support childhood vaccines like measles primarily because they protect the child from serious, well-documented harm; public health benefits are additional, not the sole justification. If the principle is that the state may override parents when there is strong evidence an intervention prevents serious harm to a child, that makes sense — and vaccines clearly meet that bar.

But if the standard becomes “evidence is imperfect or controversial, therefore parents lose the right to decide with their child’s physician,” then parental rights are far weaker than people admit, and that rule won’t stop with gender-affirming care. Many of the same political movements arguing to override parents here strongly oppose vaccine mandates there, despite vastly stronger evidence.

So what’s the consistent rule?

Either parents, in consultation with licensed physicians, retain medical decision-making authority even when evidence is evolving — or the state substitutes its judgment whenever a medical decision becomes politically unpopular. You can argue for higher evidentiary standards and better data (I agree). But selectively removing parental rights in one domain while defending them in another isn’t a scientific position — it’s an ideological one.

Chat GPT changes nothing. Defend the data. You can't. No quantifiable proof.

Chat GPT has no logic. Just regurgitation of associated words.

[UNI88]

I asked ChatGPT for some help refining my thoughts and then I had it "potato" the response so here you go ...

Yes, much of the evidence around gender-affirming care for youth is observational, includes confounders like therapy and SSRIs, shows modest effect sizes, and lacks randomized control groups. That’s a limitation of this field, and no serious medical body denies it. But lack of perfect evidence is not the same as evidence of no benefit or of harm. In pediatric and psychiatric medicine, stabilization or prevention of worsening outcomes can itself be clinically meaningful, even when improvements aren’t dramatic.

On Olson-Kennedy: the NIH puberty-blocker study you reference showed no significant improvement on some mental-health measures over two years — not deterioration. Non-publication of null or mixed findings is common across medicine and, by itself, doesn’t demonstrate fraud or bad faith. Criticize advocacy if you want, but that’s different from proving the science was fabricated.

The Cass Review likewise does not conclude that gender-affirming care is ineffective or abusive. Its core finding is that the evidence base is limited and heterogeneous and that care should be cautious, individualized, and better studied. That position is broadly aligned with U.S. medical organizations, which also do not claim the science is settled — only that care should remain available under physician-led, case-by-case judgment rather than categorical bans.

Which brings me to parental rights.

I support childhood vaccines like measles primarily because they protect the child from serious, well-documented harm; public health benefits are additional, not the sole justification. If the principle is that the state may override parents when there is strong evidence an intervention prevents serious harm to a child, that makes sense — and vaccines clearly meet that bar.

But if the standard becomes “evidence is imperfect or controversial, therefore parents lose the right to decide with their child’s physician,” then parental rights are far weaker than people admit, and that rule won’t stop with gender-affirming care. Many of the same political movements arguing to override parents here strongly oppose vaccine mandates there, despite vastly stronger evidence.

So what’s the consistent rule?

Either parents, in consultation with licensed physicians, retain medical decision-making authority even when evidence is evolving — or the state substitutes its judgment whenever a medical decision becomes politically unpopular. You can argue for higher evidentiary standards and better data (I agree). But selectively removing parental rights in one domain while defending them in another isn’t a scientific position — it’s an ideological one.

Chat GPT changes nothing. Defend the data. You can't. No quantifiable proof.

Chat GPT has no logic. Just regurgitation of associated words.

You demand “perfect proof” to allow gender-affirming care, yet accept the same type of observational data when it suits your argument — that’s selective skepticism, not science. You have a background in healthcare supplier sales; I’m coming at this from a reasoning-based perspective, and I see a double standard: parents routinely make medical decisions, like vaccines, but suddenly their judgment is unacceptable here. Uncertainty isn’t proof of harm, and it’s not a coherent reason to strip parental and physician authority.