"Children cannot consent to puberty blockers" and being in the wrong body

[excreationist]

I believe him when he says he is familiar with the literature and he mentioned the SEGM website which includes some of it.

And Ken Ham claims to be familiar with the scientific literature on evolution. He has a whole website called answers in genesis that analyzes a ton of it. Do you think he actually is? How can we tell?

Studies

SEGM has been compiling a compendium of literature to highlight our position of concern over the proliferation of hormonal and surgical "gender-affirmative" interventions for gender dysphoric youth. This is NOT an all-inclusive list of all the studies in the field of pediatric gender medicine...

segm.org

says "we aim to highlight unsettled debates in the field" (their bolding) "literature to highlight our position of concern over the proliferation of hormonal and surgical "gender-affirmative" interventions". They appear to be more open minded that Ken Ham. Ken Ham clearly says that the source of truth is the Bible rather than just what science seems to find.
The literature on Chris's field would be more narrow than evolution I think. There might be thousands of papers or more but that would be read by Chris.

He says he highlights unsettled debates and yet he clearly falls strongly on one side of the debate and cherry picks evidence to support that.

Actually the SEGM site says that. Chris just recommends the SEGM site to others.

If you are open minded and these debates are really unsettled, why haven't you bothered to listen to the respected people in this field and see what their perspective is?

Well I've only been watching his videos for a couple of days. I think the YouTube algorithm recommended them to me for some reason. Before that I watched/listened to dozens of anti-Trump/Musk talk show videos. Before that I watched a lot of Sky News Australia videos (like "lefties losing it" which was occasionally about transgender people). [and also lots of other topics like AI/gaming] I find his videos to be quite addictive - there's heaps of drama like some reality tv shows. Sometimes the police and security get involved.

I like how well-mannered he is to very hostile people.

Find the people in particular whose job it is to advance the field of research. If you are interested in the effectiveness of puberty blockers as a treatment for gender dysphoria, who are the top 5 people in this particular field of research, and what do they have to say? Can you name even a single one? If not, then you have not been open minded and done proper research on the issue. Are all 5 in agreement? Is it 4-1, or split 3-2 regarding the most important conclusions?

Well posting here has only taken up a couple of hours of my time yet I got some good counter-arguments rather than me having to do that difficult-sounding research - and even if I did do that research I might have been less likely to change my mind than if I had talked to multiple people simulateously like I did here.

 

[Axulus]

Hmmmm. Does this sound like a good, open minded, objective source of information to you? A political lobbying group that lobbies for one side of the issue (opposition to gender-affirming care)? To me this is very low on my level of evidence I accept to determine the truth of an issue. A political lobbying group has an agenda to advance their issue, not advance the truth. Run away from listening to these type of groups if you care about what is true. That isn't to say they are always wrong, just _extremely_ unreliable as a source of truth due to the inherent conflict of interest.

I would say the exact same thing of a political lobbying group that lobbied in favor of gender affirming care. While I may agree with their position on the issue, I would not consider them a reliable source of scientific information on the issue.

The Society For Evidence-Based Gender Medicine (SEGM) is a non-profit organization that is known for its opposition to gender-affirming care for transgender youth and for engaging in political lobbying. SEGM is known for transgender health care misinformation.[1][2][3][4] It has falsely claimed that the majority of transgender children desist, argued that gender exploratory therapy should be the first line treatment for those under 25, and promoted the scientifically unsupported theory of Rapid-onset gender dysphoria.[1][2][5] SEGM is often cited in anti-transgender legislation and court cases, sometimes filing court briefs.[4][6]

Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[excreationist]

Hmmmm. Does this sound like a good, open minded, objective source of information to you? A political lobbying group that lobbies for one side of the issue (opposition to gender-affirming care)? To me this is very low on my level of evidence I accept to determine the truth of an issue. A political lobbying group has an agenda to advance their issue, not advance the truth. Run away from listening to these type of groups if you care about what is true. That isn't to say they are always wrong, just _extremely_ unreliable as a source of truth due to the inherent conflict of interest.

The Society For Evidence-Based Gender Medicine (SEGM) is a non-profit organization that is known for its opposition to gender-affirming care for transgender youth and for engaging in political lobbying. SEGM is known for transgender health care misinformation.[1][2][3][4] It has falsely claimed that the majority of transgender children desist, argued that gender exploratory therapy should be the first line treatment for those under 25, and promoted the scientifically unsupported theory of Rapid-onset gender dysphoria.[1][2][5] SEGM is often cited in anti-transgender legislation and court cases, sometimes filing court briefs.[4][6]

Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Well the main reason I was attracted to this debate was because I found Chris to be very interesting. Now the topic seems to be procrastination so I probably won't spend much more time researching the topic, especially on a technical level.

Maybe I'm at the next stages in the Dunning-Kruger effect where I feel things are too complicated.

 

[Axulus]

Hmmmm. Does this sound like a good, open minded, objective source of information to you? A political lobbying group that lobbies for one side of the issue (opposition to gender-affirming care)? To me this is very low on my level of evidence I accept to determine the truth of an issue. A political lobbying group has an agenda to advance their issue, not advance the truth. Run away from listening to these type of groups if you care about what is true. That isn't to say they are always wrong, just _extremely_ unreliable as a source of truth due to the inherent conflict of interest.

The Society For Evidence-Based Gender Medicine (SEGM) is a non-profit organization that is known for its opposition to gender-affirming care for transgender youth and for engaging in political lobbying. SEGM is known for transgender health care misinformation.[1][2][3][4] It has falsely claimed that the majority of transgender children desist, argued that gender exploratory therapy should be the first line treatment for those under 25, and promoted the scientifically unsupported theory of Rapid-onset gender dysphoria.[1][2][5] SEGM is often cited in anti-transgender legislation and court cases, sometimes filing court briefs.[4][6]

Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Well the main reason I was attracted to this debate was because I found Chris to be very interesting. Now the topic seems to be procrastination so I probably won't spend much more time researching the topic, especially on a technical level.
View attachment 50088
Maybe I'm at the next stages in the Dunning-Kruger effect where I feel things are too complicated.

Ok sounds good hope I was able to provide some insight.

 

[Patooka]

Hmmmm. Does this sound like a good, open minded, objective source of information to you? A political lobbying group that lobbies for one side of the issue (opposition to gender-affirming care)? To me this is very low on my level of evidence I accept to determine the truth of an issue. A political lobbying group has an agenda to advance their issue, not advance the truth. Run away from listening to these type of groups if you care about what is true. That isn't to say they are always wrong, just _extremely_ unreliable as a source of truth due to the inherent conflict of interest.

The Society For Evidence-Based Gender Medicine (SEGM) is a non-profit organization that is known for its opposition to gender-affirming care for transgender youth and for engaging in political lobbying. SEGM is known for transgender health care misinformation.[1][2][3][4] It has falsely claimed that the majority of transgender children desist, argued that gender exploratory therapy should be the first line treatment for those under 25, and promoted the scientifically unsupported theory of Rapid-onset gender dysphoria.[1][2][5] SEGM is often cited in anti-transgender legislation and court cases, sometimes filing court briefs.[4][6]

Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Well the main reason I was attracted to this debate was because I found Chris to be very interesting. Now the topic seems to be procrastination so I probably won't spend much more time researching the topic, especially on a technical level.
View attachment 50088
Maybe I'm at the next stages in the Dunning-Kruger effect where I feel things are too complicated.

Maybe just don't watch Sky News. I was wondering how you first discovered Transphobe Chris.

For non Australians, Sky is the Aussie version of Faux Nauz.

 

[excreationist]

Maybe just don't watch Sky News. I was wondering how you first discovered Transphobe Chris.

For non Australians, Sky is the Aussie version of Faux Nauz.

Lately I've also been watching heaps of Punter's Politics (anti-corporation) and friendlyjordies (very pro-Labor). Both are comedians.
I gave up on Sky News Australia when they released this video:

“Personally, I believe he [Dutton] should be backing the Trump agenda 100 per cent,” Mr Dean said. The other two hosts seem to be basically agreeing with him. Note Murdoch owns Sky News Australia.

I don't remember seeing Chris on YouTube before a couple of days ago. I think the first videos I watched involved the police.

 

[Patooka]

Let me guess - you've come across a shot ton of "Trumpet of Patriots" ads as well recently. Not that hard to figure out why.

 

[zorq]

Chris rejects the term “wrong body” and gets others to try and define it and they assume it is a useful term.

Anything you disagree with so far? I can't answer your question as I don't know what you mean when you say "wrong body." Bodies are neither right nor wrong, they just are what they are.

Apparently being in the wrong body is the justification for transitioning children, sometimes against their parents will. i.e. it involves making their body match their “gender identity”.

Why did you respond to this but completely fail to address it? What are you talking about when you use the words "wrong body?"

Chris rejects the term “wrong body” and gets others to try and define it and they assume it is a useful term.

It sounds like you agree with this Chris person. But why would either of you insist on having others answer questions using a term that you think is problematic? That sounds disingenuous to me. How can we take you seriously if you choose to ask questions dishonestly?

 

[excreationist]

Let me guess - you've come across a shot ton of "Trumpet of Patriots" ads as well recently. Not that hard to figure out why.

Well I was posting on reddit about it within hours of the news breaking. BTW Clive Palmer spent $120m (in advertising?) to win his seat. But then in the next election he didn't get in. Trumpet (Trump pet) of Patriots is his third party - after the Palmer United Party and the United Australia Party. I've also seen his big dinosaur park and his big car collection. I'm technically a Greens party member but I've been trying to end the membership because I was wanting to work in the election. Chris said that he was meeting with a Greens member and gave the impression that he was open to Chris.

 

[excreationist]

It sounds like you agree with this Chris person. But why would either of you insist on having others answer questions using a term that you think is problematic? That sounds disingenuous to me. How can we take you seriously if you choose to ask questions dishonestly?

I can't give another example of this but basically I think in the past some transition supporters talk about being in the "wrong body". The people Chris talks to seem familiar with the term or its concept. I guess it means that if you have a male brain you should be in a male body rather than a female body and transitioning is the way to achieve that. There might be some Biblical term that involves this kind of thing (oxymoron?) but I can't think of it at the moment.

 

[bilby]

This is about a guy called "Billboard Chris"

Billboard Chris

I’m a dad — a human male who protects his kids from gender ideology. Traveling the world to stop child transition, one conversation at a time.

www.youtube.com

He goes around the world wearing a billboard that says "Children cannot consent to puberty blockers" on the front. He has "conversations" with people - sometimes near universities (but slightly off campus so the security don't have a problem).

Apparently the drugs and surgery (like mastectomies) are done before the typical age of consent so they can transition better by not going through the puberty of their biological sex.

Here is Chris's speech to the UN:


Sometimes he recommends this website:

Frequently Asked Questions

Looking for some answers? Frequently Asked Questions

segm.org

He sometimes asks the people he talks to (or argues with) this:
"How can a child be born in the wrong body"?

Some answer that there could be a girl with a male brain or vice versa. Chris says that a masculine girl is still a girl, etc - he says the idea of a male or female brain is sexist and involves stereotypes (when people are saying they have to transition because of their brain)

He also says many people who transition early regret it and many are just gay rather than having the wrong body. He says it can result in sterilization.

Here Chris is talking about the most used resource in the world for defining gender identity - the gender bread person: (then they build a human wall around him)


Like Chris says, it says gender identity can involve personality traits, likes, dislikes, and even jobs and hobbies

https://www.movingtraditions.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/genderbread-person-appendix-E.pdf

I think this is related to politics because it is partly about laws.

Perhaps lots of people here would think transitioning early is a good thing.

The main focus is about what is being done to children.

Frankly, the gender dysphoria question is just a distraction from the key point here:

Chris has a VERY strong opinion about how OTHER PEOPLE should behave.

People who are strong activists for OTHER PEOPLE to behave in ways they like, or to refrain from behaving in ways they dislike, are UTTER TITS, and should NEVER be allowed to drive debate or policy; They should instead be told to FUCK OFF, and to MIND THEIR OWN BUSINESS.

This basic principle applies to all human behaviours of a personal nature.

Whether it's a question if allowing prepubescent children to take puberty blockers; Allowing pregnant women to have abortions; Allowing stoners to smoke weed; Requiring people to attend church on Sunday (or mosque on Friday); Prohibiting the sale of alcohol or tobacco; Or anything else that does no direct harm to the devoted advocate who argues for making whatever it is illegal (or mandatory), the appropriate response is MIND YOUR OWN FUCKING BUSINESS.

A person who devotes his life to telling others how to behave (particularly if his lobbying is on a single issue about which he is obsessively controlling, or desirous of control) is a person who needs psychiatric care, not someone whose "arguments" should be treated with respect.

Zealots cannot be reasoned with, and the futile attempt merely strengthens their immoral and unethical position.

I don't care whether total strangers choose to take puberty blockers - and nor should anyone else. Anyone who does, is someone who needs to be told to get a life, seek help, or just plain fuck off.

His position boils down to "My opinion about your life overrides your opinion about your life". The details are just obscuring that fundamental (and fundamentally immoral) position.

 

[bilby]

I think transitioning to another gender is a serious business that should be taken seriously by everyone involved - especially medical professionals.

...and not by anyone NOT involved - especially fuckwits like "Billboard Chris".

 

[bilby]

So a 13 or even 12 year old girl getting mastectomies is in their best interest?

I don't know.

Nor do you.

Nor does "Billboard Chris".

The individual girls (each in her own unique circumstances), their parents, and their doctors probably do. But even if they don't, you, me, and fuckwit Chris can't help them in any way, and should butt the fuck out.

 

[excreationist]

Frankly, the gender dysphoria question is just a distraction from the key point here:

Chris has a VERY strong opinion about how OTHER PEOPLE should behave.

People who are strong activists for OTHER PEOPLE to behave in ways they like, or to refrain from behaving in ways they dislike, are UTTER TITS, and should NEVER be allowed to drive debate or policy; They should instead be told to FUCK OFF, and to MIND THEIR OWN BUSINESS.

He gives the impression that he wants to protect the well-being of children.

About Puberty Blockers — Billboard Chris

www.billboardchris.com

On his site he says "What we do know is that If children are free to go through puberty, at least 4 out of 5 kids will see their gender dysphoria just go away" which I assume is based on scientific literature (since he claims to be very knowledgeable about the literature).
I think he's claimed that children have been transitioned against the wishes of their parent/s. He also talks about drugs/surgery causing sterilization and that removing breasts is irreversible, etc (at least in terms of milk production). I'm not sure if that is based on reality. But when I assume those things are accurate then he seems very persuasive in his key point about children not consenting to puberty blockers and their wellbeing.
Sometimes he talks about pedophilia in relation to the wellbeing of children. He says something about a child consenting to sex with a man... Should other people mind their own business in that situation even though they think there is a problem? Interestingly I think the ethicist Peter Singer thinks children having sex with men is moral if they consent.

 

[bilby]

He gives the impression that he wants to protect the well-being of children.

They are not his fucking children, so it's not his fucking business, so he should butt the fuck out.

Protecting the wellbeing of children has been a propaganda claim of zealots since forever; It's literally a fucking joke.

 

[bilby]

On his site he says

I don't care.

You shouldn't care.

He shouldn't even care.

Who the fuck is he, that anyone should care what he says? Is he the ONLY person who cares about children? Is he an expert in the field on which he spouts his opinions? Or is he just a meddling busybody who should fuck off?

 

[excreationist]

He gives the impression that he wants to protect the well-being of children.

They are not his fucking children, so it's not his fucking business, so he should butt the fuck out.

Protecting the wellbeing of children has been a propaganda claim of zealots since forever; It's literally a fucking joke.

In the case of a child consenting to sex with a man, what if the child's parents are dead or don't care? Can some random guy think it is wrong? What if you lived in a culture where it was ok to marry a 9 year old?

 

[bilby]

He gives the impression that he wants to protect the well-being of children.

They are not his fucking children, so it's not his fucking business, so he should butt the fuck out.

Protecting the wellbeing of children has been a propaganda claim of zealots since forever; It's literally a fucking joke.

In the case of a child consenting to sex with a man, what if the child's parents are dead or don't care? Can some random guy think it is wrong?

What the hell has that got to do with anything?

Of course some random guy can think it is wrong. Does that mean we should let one random guy tell everyone else what is or is not OK?

 

[excreationist]

In the case of a child consenting to sex with a man, what if the child's parents are dead or don't care? Can some random guy think it is wrong?

What the hell has that got to do with anything?

Of course some random guy can think it is wrong. Does that mean we should let one random guy tell everyone else what is or is not OK?

Chris used the child consenting to sex example sometimes. If you lived in a culture where it was ok to marry a 9 year old, but you disagreed with this because the children couldn't properly consent, would it be wrong to tell everyone else that isn't ok?

 

[bilby]

Chris used the child consenting to sex example sometimes.

I don't care.

His examples, arguments, topics, positions and ideas are all just a distraction from the simple fact:

WHAT OTHER PEOPLE DO IS NONE OF HIS BUSINESS.