"Few deny that many individuals are genuinely satisfied with the results of their hormonal or surgical transition."
Count me among the "few". When someone suffering from a delusion about themselves, who has been coached by their online peers on what to say in order to get the supposed solution they have become obsessed with, whose fragile…
"Few deny that many individuals are genuinely satisfied with the results of their hormonal or surgical transition."
Count me among the "few". When someone suffering from a delusion about themselves, who has been coached by their online peers on what to say in order to get the supposed solution they have become obsessed with, whose fragile self-image is utterly dependent on believing that doing what they are doing is helping them, is then asked afterward whether they are happy with it, their response is approximately as valuable as the response anorexics give when asked whether they feel good that they have gotten thinner. Are the anorexics genuinely satisfied by starving themselves?
Are Swifties genuinely in awe of Taylor Swift’s musical talent and songwriting capability, or are they caught in a self-reinforcing, mass delusion that this ultra-wealthy, mediocre, yet very attractive, singer is somehow a victim of every guy she’s dated, and that therefore she is entitled to their empathy, money and time, spent listening to her vapid and trite lyrics?
Victim as a brand identity sells; just look at Jesus.
That's the whole point of my article, that self reports relying on short-term follow-ups are not good evidence of benefit. While many express genuine satisfaction with their procedures after a short time frame, we have no idea of they will feel the same in 10 years. And if they do express satisfaction 10+ years down the road, it is still impossible to know whether GAC *caused* the improvements they cite, or whether similar levels of contentment couldn't have been achieved through less invasive means. And, lastly, patient satisfaction is how we measure the success of cosmetic procedures, not medical ones. We cannot therefore justify GAC on the basis that it is "life-saving" but then simply cite patient satisfaction as our response variable.
So yeah, I think he kids who express satisfaction after their hormones and surgeries aren't lying, but this is not how we measure the success of extreme interventions. It is not evidence-based medicine.
"We cannot therefore justify GAC on the basis that it is "life-saving" but then simply cite patient satisfaction as our response variable."
No we definitely can't! In addition, they cannot say that medical transition is life-saving without explaining how the patient was in danger. If he/she received hormones and surgery, the implication is that the patient was thought to be endangered by the body parts that were removed. The gender affirmative care people have not stated what the life-threatening condition was that necessitated removal of healthy body parts. They don't want to say that there was "something wrong with" the affected person other than a "physical problem." This means that there is no diagnosis, and the treatment team fails to document medical necessity for any type of treatment.
Kids are genuinely satisfied if they eat a gallon of ice cream. A drug addict is genuinely satisfied by a hit of the drug. In neither case is satisfaction used as an indicator of goodness.
"Few deny that many individuals are genuinely satisfied with the results of their hormonal or surgical transition."
Count me among the "few". When someone suffering from a delusion about themselves, who has been coached by their online peers on what to say in order to get the supposed solution they have become obsessed with, whose fragile self-image is utterly dependent on believing that doing what they are doing is helping them, is then asked afterward whether they are happy with it, their response is approximately as valuable as the response anorexics give when asked whether they feel good that they have gotten thinner. Are the anorexics genuinely satisfied by starving themselves?
Are Swifties genuinely in awe of Taylor Swift’s musical talent and songwriting capability, or are they caught in a self-reinforcing, mass delusion that this ultra-wealthy, mediocre, yet very attractive, singer is somehow a victim of every guy she’s dated, and that therefore she is entitled to their empathy, money and time, spent listening to her vapid and trite lyrics?
Victim as a brand identity sells; just look at Jesus.
And now they're marketing him as non-binary and Bi, the clever bastards: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUFqLEk_p9Q
LOL!! Very quick of you!!
Even Colin undercuts himself by shading the truth. It's disgraceful.
That's the whole point of my article, that self reports relying on short-term follow-ups are not good evidence of benefit. While many express genuine satisfaction with their procedures after a short time frame, we have no idea of they will feel the same in 10 years. And if they do express satisfaction 10+ years down the road, it is still impossible to know whether GAC *caused* the improvements they cite, or whether similar levels of contentment couldn't have been achieved through less invasive means. And, lastly, patient satisfaction is how we measure the success of cosmetic procedures, not medical ones. We cannot therefore justify GAC on the basis that it is "life-saving" but then simply cite patient satisfaction as our response variable.
So yeah, I think he kids who express satisfaction after their hormones and surgeries aren't lying, but this is not how we measure the success of extreme interventions. It is not evidence-based medicine.
"We cannot therefore justify GAC on the basis that it is "life-saving" but then simply cite patient satisfaction as our response variable."
No we definitely can't! In addition, they cannot say that medical transition is life-saving without explaining how the patient was in danger. If he/she received hormones and surgery, the implication is that the patient was thought to be endangered by the body parts that were removed. The gender affirmative care people have not stated what the life-threatening condition was that necessitated removal of healthy body parts. They don't want to say that there was "something wrong with" the affected person other than a "physical problem." This means that there is no diagnosis, and the treatment team fails to document medical necessity for any type of treatment.
Kids are genuinely satisfied if they eat a gallon of ice cream. A drug addict is genuinely satisfied by a hit of the drug. In neither case is satisfaction used as an indicator of goodness.