Hacker News Reader

Comment by watwut | Hacker News Reader

> "wait, we need to be more cautious about this"? Or do both sides just want their demands to be accepted?

I think that yours "wait, we need to be more cautious about this" or is this just another "I do not care about answers, I just want to pretend so".

> Would either side actually back down if the research said that what they were doing was harmful or ineffective?

Research is there and it is saying current clinics were not harmful and were not ineffective. So yes, one side cares about research and the other is not.

View on HN

>I think that yours "wait, we need to be more cautious about this" or is this just another "I do not care about answers, I just want to pretend so".

I don't know what you're referring to, but if you would like to get specific about it, many authoritative medical organizations, such as the one that presides over Sweden, have declared a halt on procedures such as prescribing puberty blockers to minors. This is an example of a "wait, we need to be more cautious about this", saying that the risks outweigh the benefits.

https://segm.org/Swedish-2022-trans-guidelines-youth-experim...

But here you are implying that the science is already "settled" and that there is no harm. So when you say that one side cares about the research and the other does not, are you completely sure about that?

I am completely sure about that, yes. Because even your "many authoritative medical organizations" thing cherry picks one organization saying maybe and ignores any positive results entirely.

You do not care about which procedures were actually done nor about what it took to get them. Puberty blockers for minors are not something new or done to transgender kids only. They have been used for years for non-transgender kids and they are not the only treatment constantly under attack.

If you cared about puberty blockers safety, you would care about also about when they work, you would care about accessibility when they do work ... and you would not act as if they were so easy to get in the first place.

And that last thing gives the game away.

It's not just Sweden, I could list other countries too, such as Denmark, Finland, England (outside of trials), Wales and Scotland. Norway calls it "experimental". All this information was found on the homepage of the same site I linked earlier.

But you don't seem to be open to discussion on this issue, and that's the double standard I'm pointing out. "They do not care about what research say or whether there is harm or not" is what you've said about others, and it seems like it applies equally to you as well.

And since you don't seem to be open to discussion on this issue, I'm going to leave it here. I think my point has been made.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com