Yggstyle @ yggstyle @lemmy.world

Just another voice yelling in the void.

---

Read more

Posts

0

Comments

428

Joined

2 yr. ago

Oh, I'm fully aware. Tribalism is the lizard brain going deeeep in the paint. The problem is this: peaceful culture doesn't fight back - aggressive culture exploits this: which one thrives? We have systematically bred for and codified our warlike nature. This is the result. Is it fixable? Many have tried. Our history books are littered with both failed attempts and their distorted remains. All I can say for certain is that the way the majority of countries are structured... isn't it. This is fundamentally why achieving a fix is nearly impossible at scale: tribalism. Even if we are wrong it's our wrong and we don't want to lose it. This is rooted in fear of change which from a survival aspect makes sense... but becomes detrimental at scale.

This may not be a popular response but when did the nazi regime stop? When did China stop with it's cleansing? America and manifest destiny? I could go on... Humanity needs to realize that we are pretty shitty in general and can't be trusted when it comes to hatred, entitlement, and tribalism.

The solution is a neutral third party with sufficient power to stop any country's bullshit through economic and military (actual) peacekeeping... which doesn't exist nor will it ever.

So the short answer is they will stop when the cleansing is complete.

After the deed is done we as 'civilized' nations will lament the tragedy and promise change... until the media cycle washes all those sins down the drain and it will be forgotten until next time.

So there is a calculation for what time the sun is at a particular angle in the sky which will be relative to your area and factors in the time of year etc. You could use that as it will give you a very specific to your area mathematical answer to when you should close your shades. This is a good start. If you mix that with a light sensor and set minimums that will get you the rest of the way there (no sense run blocking lightning a cloudy day.) You can just use a light sensor but it will be more erratic if you don't correct for weather and seasonal light levels.

The rest is personal to how sensitive to light changes and seasonal settings you apply to it.

As far as the physical control goes - there are several commercial devices available as well as diy solutions involving motors and 3d printing on YouTube.

It really is a shame a lot of that got deleted as we all were referencing off it. The reason given didn't fit as the discussions, while heated, were mostly civil.

I forget my exact choice of words (which is frustrating) but in essence I said that a pause doesn't exist. It is a chemical process being blocked. It doesn't run it back for the missed time after the blockers go away- it simply runs its remaining time out. I recall acknowledging that while yes blockers have been in use for some time the dosage and effect desired were different: think reducing a flow rather than outright turning it off. The result and long term effects are different and there are far fewer studies on the latter. I made an off the cuff comment about not wanting to use children as test subjects I believe.

All of that more or less to explain my position that outright blocking so early can have lasting effects that may threaten the health of the person later in life. This is why I think the use of pause and the downplaying of potential side effects is in poor taste or disingenuous.

let's not be pedantic to try to weasel out a point. Let me clarify: people [in this thread] have stated it is a method to prevent the results of puberty... which unless I am mistaken can start quite early (12 and earlier.) My statements echoed how ridiculous that is... so thank you for the concern but my facts were straight.

It's a distasteful and disingenuous tone but I'll break it down:

Elsewhere in this thread, you assert that hormones produced during puberty are essential to the cognitive development of these children you seem to care so much about.

You are combining two statements I made and inferring something incorrectly from it.

First in reference to the hormones and puberty: it's known that these hormones don't exclusively develop our sexual attributes. They do, certainly, but that's not all they do. Many of the drawbacks of taking inhibitors are result of inhibiting this (other) development in our bodies. I believe I referenced the mayo clinics site as an example.

Cognitive development is important. Absolutely. I firmly believe that prior to the age of consent we shouldn't be in a hurry to medicate away this "problem." The adolescent should be supported and given access to counseling so they, given sufficient time and information, can make an informed decision.

But now we should make those same children wait nearly a decade – delaying this vital development – until they're legally adults?

That is roughly what I'm implying- but your math is off unless we are starting this discussion around the age of 6 to 8. Let's dial down the dramatics here.

I'm omitting your catch 22 as it is circular nonsense.

Out of curiosity, what medical treatments do you consider allowable for minors? ... [truncated] ...

This is more or less all the same. In short most of the things you have listed can be tested for and quantified. And yes while we can use drugs for treatment - very frequently we employ counseling and other less drastic methods before resorting to drugs. A state of being or sense of self is difficult to test for or quantity. There has been some headway on it but it's in it's infancy... so yes my stance on exercising a more methodical and cautious approach remains a reasonable decision.

16+ is the age of consent depending on where you live. My stance is focused on prior to that age. I have indicated as much in other responses. People are saying it should be started to counteract puberty which for many starts as early as 12. Within that scope in mind... I imagine my stance is a bit more logical.

There was a time when it was almost trendy to have a child who was gay. It was a disgusting period and it highlighted how people would project their ideals and ideas onto their kids. I had a friend I cared for deeply struggle with some fallout related to that. There is a reason I stress informed consent opposed to what I'd describe as guided consent: It's their decision and they should make it when they have been given sufficient time and counseling to be certain. This isn't a binary discussion - there's a lot of nuance.

As a direct answer to your statement (your question warranted a separate thread):

I agree on case by case. Some will be clear cut but kids are malleable and uncertain. They have very little worldly experience to draw on and need to be protected... universally. My reaction to posts and positions such as this one is visceral. Too many people will bandwagon the ideal and 'virtue' of it and in doing so propose overly simplified ideas that aren't a real (or complete) solution. It's social media - I expect the response I got to a degree but it is pleasant when it yields a good discussion. It may benefit someone later to be able to observe those views and see that it is possible to discuss differences in opinions without a firefight.

Yeah, I saw that. Apparently rule 3... despite most of the interactions being civil. I petitioned its return as I think it adds context and is worth the discussion:

I made a spoiler text analog to a statement that we should allow underaged (implied age which we have been discussing) adolescents to have complete sexual freedom. Some people clearly stopped reading and took that to some impressive extremes. I had prefaced and followed the statement with an indication that we wouldn't allow such a thing (and rightly so.) The statement's intent was to illustrate that we cannot expect someone so young to make informed decisions about certain things.

I believe in a follow-up statement I expanded saying it was equally incorrect for someone else to make that decision for the child/adolescent. It's too important.

I selected it for its fairly universal acceptance and (as I've mentioned) some similar gravity in allowing them to make those decisions so early.

More generic hand waving and resorting to mudslinging. If I were actually here to troll rather than have a discussion I wouldn't be engaging with others in earnest.

I'm acquainted with your type and identified it early on. You simply mimic the masses rhetoric and have nothing of substance to bring to the table. When pressed you only can get angry and use that to mask this shortcoming. Honestly though, most people can identify this behavior... children do it frequently. Most grow out of it.

I provided you a rope to come back and have civil discourse - you opted to hang yourself with it. Predictable, but a shame.

I have to admit I didn't think that jab would regress you any further. Color me impressed. Most people would stop before behaving that embarrassingly. That got an audible laugh out of me.

Making a generic statement to further a conversation is commonplace. It was not to be taken literally. If you are planning on analyzing my figures of speech for fallacies, by all means, be my guest: but it only reinforces my observation from earlier.

None of the known risks or side effects include cognitive impairment, you are attributing to puberty blockers changes to cognitive development without research demonstrating the causal link between limiting puberty hormones and decreased or slowed cognitive development like the known negative effects. I also wouldn't accept increased cognitive development as a positive effect under puberty blockers without justification either. Until there is sufficient justification for either position we are not justified reaching either conclusion..

This is a fair point and I will admit I did not have any research in mind when I brought it up... however I believe it's fair to say that of the research that has been done very little focuses on this specific application and it's long term effects.

I am concerned there is and will be increased public resistance to what the medical consensus supports because of the political scapegoating trans people are under, and wonder if we were talking about transhumanism in general instead focused specifically on transgenderism would the resistance be the same.

I loathe politcs involving sexuality period. It's one more way to splinter a community. We absolutely agree here.

The discussions you've mentioned would likely start with a child experiencing distress reported to an adult or their parents noticing their distress and working with a medical doctor to identify the causes and treatment plans to consider. In the cases where the distress is related to a lasting pattern of gender dysphoria or gender nonconformity that is one of the criteria for prescribing puberty blockers.

While this is the case care should be given to how that information is interpreted. Toys, clothing choices, even colors can simply be a very neutral and innocent interest and may (from the child's perspective) simply be something they enjoy. We as adults can overly assign meaning and weight to these choices which may impact the child's perspective. Psychology in general can bandwagon quite a bit in this regard. I will say it has improved quite a bit but we're all human. I digress. To your point I still believe that counseling is and should be the first step and medication should be (if used) used sparingly and ideally after some time has passed. I still firmly dislike the "it's just a pause button" mentality people have. It's far more complex than that- it needs to be respected as a weighty decision.

Devolving the discussion into whatever that bile you spit out seems to suggest you have nothing further add. Skimming over it only confirms you lack a functional capacity to understand examples and exercise some basic reasoning. Continuing, while certainly amusing, would do nothing for the conversation. Find some peace friend.

In response: why does your perspective bear more weight than mine? That is an impressive ivory tower you are constructing. My responses have been civil and open. All I am getting from you is angst and presumption... and frankly that's a bad look.

I'm happy to discuss things but I won't hesitate to point out you are acting like a child at present.

Risks of medical intervention always should be weighed against risks of nonintervention.

Agreed. I have expressed as much when discussing adverse effects.

If there is a significant probability a child is trans, delaying puberty may be the least intrusive option. There is a chance of negative effects, like with all medical interventions, but if they are most likely trans forcing them to undergo puberty is much more likely to have long term negative effects (including suicidality).

The first statement while correct is ignoring that if they are in fact trans there is a high likelihood of hormone therapy and/or surgery regardless. The statement about the psychological aspects is oft tied to discussions like these: They rarely factor in adolescents in general are an increased risk during this time. Funnily enough councilling and familial support are typically the strongest way to combat most cases which stem from isolation and fear/confusion.

Why is this specific medical decision equivalent to kids having sex? Do you view other procedures, like deciding to have braces, the same way? What about much riskier treatments with a muddled short/long term prognosis, like some heart surgeries?

edit: I misread the above and combined it with another discussion from a prior thread. sorry!

Ultimately because the choice can effect you later in life. This is one of the reasons we apply the gravity to it that we do. There are other parallels. In the end we acknowledge that a more developed mind can weigh those pros and cons and make a (more?) informed decision. I absolutely pushed this perspective to 11 to get a response but I firmly believe it is an acceptable equivalent in terms of weight of decision.

Hmm... Mostly because sexuality is tied to who we are. Does it determine every aspect of our existence? I'm not freud 😂. No. But it is undeniably a facet in our complex understanding of self.

Braces are an interesting choice; they have health benefits as well as effect our outward appearance. Surgeries (as I think I've expressed before) don't quite fall into this category but... If you have a low risk heart condition (relatively speaking) you could dive right in and get surgery (risks) or perhaps wait and do more research on it and become better informed. If anything it would support what I am advocating. (Yes I'm aware you can flip the argument the other way.) I think it's worth acknowledging that in that scenario that the latter decision is typically the recommended one.

I'm making an example. Don't be pedantic.

Mostly literal. The first couple are low ball rhetorical - the reasoning is typically appearance based. Voices can change too. I understand the urge to nip that in the bud however we are talking about someone who is far too young to have any certainty on the matter. Suffice to say I know very well about this and have multiple examples but cannot expand on this further. I will say that while it is not often talked about (often because of the backlash) not all adolescents who believe they are the wrong gender end up deciding they aren't. This too is the cause for a lot of tragic stories. With that in mind is my suggestion/assertions off base? Time is a concern, and is a relevant argument... but why risk early development over a few years against a lifetime where good health is an asset?

On your first point... [truncated] ...I have seen no evidence of that at all, and instead there's a mountain of evidence that social transition and puberty blockers lower suicidality in trans kids and increase mental health outcomes.

Most of those tests you refer to also involve therapy / councilling in combination with the drugs and very few compare the two. Further there aren't a ton of studies that involve blind tests and placebos. I'll stress again that I am not against this therapy - I am against it so early in the adolescents development process.

We've been using puberty blockers, not just for trans kids but for precocious puberty for decades and have more than enough long term evidence of their effectiveness and safety.

Which is why it's an allowed treatment, yes. But many drugs have multiple usages and in fact multiple doses which affects the end result. Dialing back an aggressive hormonal rush is a bit different than seeking to prevent it outright: which is the goal sought in this case. There are health risks to doing this and as I have asserted elsewhere: urgency is manufactured here. An adolescent needs to feel loved and supported at that stage- not like a mistake that needs immediate care.

The question of consent and knowledge of risk is a red herring. Kids can't consent to any medical procedures or sex because we've defined consent that way. But consent from the patient is not always needed for medical procedures, especially when the patient is unable to give consent. Should coma patients still get care that has risks? They can't consent right?

This is why I made the example I did. They cannot provide consent (as it isn't informed - even if it is explained to them.) This isn't a life or death decision that needs to be made immediately. It involves the rest of that childs hopefully long life. I see no reason to rush into a decision involving drugs which may impact that. And this is, in fact, how most medical professionals should (and do) approach that.

In reality, your statements lay bare a bias, which is why you're getting downvoted. You only seem to care about risks and consent for this specific highly-politicized topic and not medical procedures broadly. Because this is not about a broad critique of consent, it's about trying to excuse your uncomfortablity with this one subject and trying to justify it in any way you can.

Please detail how "too early for consent" somehow means "not at all". That's illogical. I support (as I have said multiple times) consentual therapy... but not that early. Consent should be given by the adolescent when they are legally and mentally capable of making such a choice. My statements and stance are very clear. If you disagree with it that's perfectly fine. You are entitled to your opinion as well... but don't go manufacturing some narrative as to what I believe or who I am.

...but you should at least recognize why the majority of major medical institutions make the recommendations they do.

I covered this above but most recommended therapy/counseling first then move onto drugs. I'm reasonably confident.

While on the topic of what professionals do: My family is littered with medical professionals ranging from people who develop drugs, work with children who need said drugs, are pediatricians and so on. It's a long list. From the development side there are a number of educators as well. K-12, special needs... you name it. I personally travel between hospitals for work and rub elbows with some fantastically bright individuals in many fields. I suspect I may know a thing about what is recommended and how testing is done - but please explain it further to me if you feel I lack perspective.

Perhaps some of your preconceived notions about me may be changing? I am advocating for the child, the adolescent, the individual - who needs the proper care... rather than being part of the wailing masses too busy virtue signaling and brigadeing to actually discuss what is right rather than what feels good.

I'm going to need a source that puberty blockers have negative effects on cognitive development to accept that if. If puberty related hormones were necessary to consider someone an adult then people who are missing those hormones or puberty by mutation, disease, etc wouldn't be considered adults which is not the case.

This is two different things. It's a fairly well known fact that the maturation of the adolescent mind is during puberty... which is the result of the aforementioned chemicals. I'll further that by saying if you acknowledge someone is chemically different - is stunting that change actually a good thing? The answer isn't known. There are too few peer reviewed studies with sufficient data to provide a credible answer.

As far as considering adulthood - I'd suggest tabling that as it unwinds into some ugly side conversations all of which have validity ... but doesn't belong here. There is a reason we use age as a generic determinant... and that is tied to general brain maturity and experience.

It prevents the acute release of puberty related hormones until ... [truncated]

This is the problem. (I've made this assertion elsewhere in this thread) Those hormones are responsible for more than just sexual development. We can't actually pause our bodies. We are bypassing a part of the development phase and saying "see it started again" when in reality it was just continuing for the remaining period it was supposed to be active for. This has side effects. (which you noted- See the definitions and risks on the mayo clinic site.)

Physical implications aside... we get very chicken and egg here: So do the parents recognize the child is the wrong sex and bring them to the doctor ... or the child says I'm the wrong sex and the aforementioned happens? Obviously the latter. Based on that the child is making the decision based on minimal experience and should be given counselling and time to make that decision as they develop. Your mention of self image and suicide is not uncommon amongst teens period. Providing guidance and understanding is how that is solved... but we as Americans are very good at throwing pills at that problem... and frequently do.