Hi there, I read up on that case study, and as far as I can tell, it does not support your argument. I wish it did, but it doesn't. Whereas I want to have evidence and proof against this insanity too, I want to make sure that we do so with evidence and data that means our arguments stand on their own merits of evidence and fact. The clai…
Hi there, I read up on that case study, and as far as I can tell, it does not support your argument. I wish it did, but it doesn't. Whereas I want to have evidence and proof against this insanity too, I want to make sure that we do so with evidence and data that means our arguments stand on their own merits of evidence and fact. The claims you make in your comment and this study do not align. It is misleading at best. This hurts our cause, it offers more holes for the gender ideologues to poke holes and tell us how wrong we are.
It is important to realize that this study is talking about a single, fictional case study "Stevie" to make its point - and it does make a good point. Sadly, we have no data to suggest that this is common, if ever found in reality, and since it relies on two largely discredited and flawed studies, no one will take this as proof of anything. Particularly if we state it in such absolutes as you have. Because that is not what the study says at all. It says we cannot have a strict uncritical gender-affirming care model. It does raise a valid point with this, but the more I read into this, the more I realized that the author(s) are under the impression that the GAMOC means one cannot question anything at all, and this simply is not the case. So this study raises an important question for therapists and doctors to consider in a great way - one I hope will do precisely what we all hope for here - a more critical approach to this care, one that does its level best to peel that onion and find out what is really going on before any hasty conclusions are drawn. But to say that the GAMOC is a mess because it ignores comorbidities...that is not at all represented in the case study.
Understanding and using a person's preferred name and pronouns is vital to the provision of affirming and respectful care of TGD children and adolescents.15,29 Providing an environment that demonstrates inclusiveness and respect for diversity is essential, with Australian research reporting that health care environments experienced as discriminatory for TGD people are correlated with poorer mental health outcomes.4,30
Avoid causing harm
Avoiding harm is an important ethical consideration for health professionals when considering different options for medical and surgical intervention, with the withholding of gender-affirming treatment potentially exacerbating distress31 and increasing the risk of self-harm or suicide. In the past, psychological practices attempting to change a person's gender identity to be more aligned with their sex assigned at birth were used.32 Approaches of this nature lack efficacy,33,34 are considered unethical,8 and may cause lasting damage to an individual's social and emotional health and wellbeing.14,33-35
... it's all affirmation except one cautionary section on seeking expert advice for some kids who may not be able to give informed consent, and a blurb about comorbidities require consulting with an additional expert. Other than that, it's all affirmation, "informed consent" and child driven, it tracks with the comments between doctors in the WPATH Files. (and it has the "avoid causing harm, which says treat them or they'll commit suicide)
Those guidelines are 95% affirmation, with two small cautions, and a warning that lack of affirmation will cause the kid to commit suicide.)
I did read the entire case study, as well as the guidelines, thanks.
While the Australian guidelines emphasize the importance of affirmative care and respectful language, they*do not preclude the critical evaluation of a patient's individual circumstances and potential comorbidities.* The cautionary sections on seeking expert advice for patients who may not be able to provide informed consent and the need for additional consultation in cases of comorbidities show that the guidelines recognize the importance of a comprehensive, individualized approach to care. Not uncritical and unquestioning affirmation/medicalization.
Affirming a patient's gender identity does not mean ignoring potential comorbidities or forgoing a thorough diagnostic process. The Clarke and Amos study highlights the need for a balance between affirmation and critical evaluation in the treatment of gender dysphoria, which is not inherently incompatible with the Australian guidelines. The claim in that study that is that "... unquestioning affirmation impossible, because it must consider whether the self-reported identity is mistaken, misleading, or frankly factitious. For example, an exploration of the possibility that a gender identity has been reported for the purposes of secondary gain would violate the principle of unquestioning affirmation."
And here is where I am saying this does not stand up to scrutiny. Because the guidelines do not demand nor require unquestioning affirmation.
The guidelines' emphasis on avoiding harm and the potential risks of withholding gender-affirming treatment should not be interpreted as a call for uncritical affirmation in all cases. Rather, it underscores the importance of providing timely, appropriate care based on a comprehensive assessment of each patient's unique needs and circumstances. That perhaps, in the crisis moment, we roll with it and through "peeling that onion" we find that it was secondary to some other issues, we can stop affirming because the patient no longer requires it, asks for it, or needs it (as an example, there are infinite paths here).
This was my point about the study. My other point was how you mischaracterized what the study actually says versus what you summarized as "the gender affirming care model is a mess because it ignores comorbidities." But that is not what the study says. Accuracy and facts matter.
No need to make it more than what it is, no need to stir the pot, we are all grieving, hurting, and furious enough already, no need to manufacture more angst (intentionally or not).
Look, I want the same thing as you - but I want this to stand on its own merits, not through a lens or filter, but on unvarnished facts as my father used to say. Undeniable facts. Otherwise we are just going to make things harder for ourselves and undermine out own position. Just my two cents anyhow. I hope you see this as wanting to row together, as I intended it and not as an attack.
Hi there, I read up on that case study, and as far as I can tell, it does not support your argument. I wish it did, but it doesn't. Whereas I want to have evidence and proof against this insanity too, I want to make sure that we do so with evidence and data that means our arguments stand on their own merits of evidence and fact. The claims you make in your comment and this study do not align. It is misleading at best. This hurts our cause, it offers more holes for the gender ideologues to poke holes and tell us how wrong we are.
It is important to realize that this study is talking about a single, fictional case study "Stevie" to make its point - and it does make a good point. Sadly, we have no data to suggest that this is common, if ever found in reality, and since it relies on two largely discredited and flawed studies, no one will take this as proof of anything. Particularly if we state it in such absolutes as you have. Because that is not what the study says at all. It says we cannot have a strict uncritical gender-affirming care model. It does raise a valid point with this, but the more I read into this, the more I realized that the author(s) are under the impression that the GAMOC means one cannot question anything at all, and this simply is not the case. So this study raises an important question for therapists and doctors to consider in a great way - one I hope will do precisely what we all hope for here - a more critical approach to this care, one that does its level best to peel that onion and find out what is really going on before any hasty conclusions are drawn. But to say that the GAMOC is a mess because it ignores comorbidities...that is not at all represented in the case study.
I'm afraid you read their fictional example and not their review of existing research and other literature. They link to this in the items reviewed:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.5694/mja17.01044
(they are Aussies after all)
which states:
Use respectful and affirming language
Understanding and using a person's preferred name and pronouns is vital to the provision of affirming and respectful care of TGD children and adolescents.15,29 Providing an environment that demonstrates inclusiveness and respect for diversity is essential, with Australian research reporting that health care environments experienced as discriminatory for TGD people are correlated with poorer mental health outcomes.4,30
Avoid causing harm
Avoiding harm is an important ethical consideration for health professionals when considering different options for medical and surgical intervention, with the withholding of gender-affirming treatment potentially exacerbating distress31 and increasing the risk of self-harm or suicide. In the past, psychological practices attempting to change a person's gender identity to be more aligned with their sex assigned at birth were used.32 Approaches of this nature lack efficacy,33,34 are considered unethical,8 and may cause lasting damage to an individual's social and emotional health and wellbeing.14,33-35
... it's all affirmation except one cautionary section on seeking expert advice for some kids who may not be able to give informed consent, and a blurb about comorbidities require consulting with an additional expert. Other than that, it's all affirmation, "informed consent" and child driven, it tracks with the comments between doctors in the WPATH Files. (and it has the "avoid causing harm, which says treat them or they'll commit suicide)
Those guidelines are 95% affirmation, with two small cautions, and a warning that lack of affirmation will cause the kid to commit suicide.)
I did read the entire case study, as well as the guidelines, thanks.
While the Australian guidelines emphasize the importance of affirmative care and respectful language, they*do not preclude the critical evaluation of a patient's individual circumstances and potential comorbidities.* The cautionary sections on seeking expert advice for patients who may not be able to provide informed consent and the need for additional consultation in cases of comorbidities show that the guidelines recognize the importance of a comprehensive, individualized approach to care. Not uncritical and unquestioning affirmation/medicalization.
Affirming a patient's gender identity does not mean ignoring potential comorbidities or forgoing a thorough diagnostic process. The Clarke and Amos study highlights the need for a balance between affirmation and critical evaluation in the treatment of gender dysphoria, which is not inherently incompatible with the Australian guidelines. The claim in that study that is that "... unquestioning affirmation impossible, because it must consider whether the self-reported identity is mistaken, misleading, or frankly factitious. For example, an exploration of the possibility that a gender identity has been reported for the purposes of secondary gain would violate the principle of unquestioning affirmation."
And here is where I am saying this does not stand up to scrutiny. Because the guidelines do not demand nor require unquestioning affirmation.
The guidelines' emphasis on avoiding harm and the potential risks of withholding gender-affirming treatment should not be interpreted as a call for uncritical affirmation in all cases. Rather, it underscores the importance of providing timely, appropriate care based on a comprehensive assessment of each patient's unique needs and circumstances. That perhaps, in the crisis moment, we roll with it and through "peeling that onion" we find that it was secondary to some other issues, we can stop affirming because the patient no longer requires it, asks for it, or needs it (as an example, there are infinite paths here).
This was my point about the study. My other point was how you mischaracterized what the study actually says versus what you summarized as "the gender affirming care model is a mess because it ignores comorbidities." But that is not what the study says. Accuracy and facts matter.
No need to make it more than what it is, no need to stir the pot, we are all grieving, hurting, and furious enough already, no need to manufacture more angst (intentionally or not).
Look, I want the same thing as you - but I want this to stand on its own merits, not through a lens or filter, but on unvarnished facts as my father used to say. Undeniable facts. Otherwise we are just going to make things harder for ourselves and undermine out own position. Just my two cents anyhow. I hope you see this as wanting to row together, as I intended it and not as an attack.
Have a great day :)
Not actually a case study. It's a hypothetical representation, which was clear if you read it. Your responses read as disingenuous.
Kinda like listening to "Erin Reed" libel the Cass report.
Oh, that's fair - you are right, it is a hypothetical representation.