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 p…
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.
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.