The U.S. sex reassignment surgery market size

So is stupidity.

 

Don't insult him.

 

Why would that freak some women out?

 

Because he’s looks like a guy.

 

So a man could, in theory, dress up like a woman and as long as the other women in the restroom don’t notice, we’re good? Can peeping Toms use that defense too? “Hey, the woman didn’t notice I was watching her, so I did nothing wrong.”

 

I mean, if nobody noticed, probably. Why wouldn't we be good in that circumstance? And, no, people of either gender are not allowed to spy on people of either gender in the bathroom.

 

I'm not sure where you're getting this. I said this person was born a girl. I'm not sure what surgery he may or may not have had, but he's lives as a man. Dresses as a man, has a beard, looks like a man. From what I know, he's treated like a man. So I said he shouldn't use a women's restroom because people would think a man was walking in.
What exactly are you disagreeing with?

 

Do you think biological males should be able to enter a woman’s restroom so long as he looks sufficiently “womanly” enough?

 

If there are urinals in there, yes. If not, no.

 

You may not have seen it but I have multiple times posted about my kids and mental health issues and that includes many different medicines and some of them off label. Yes I know what it means, and sometimes off label use of meds do work.

Mental illness, which includes gender dysphoria, is very complex and difficult. Often your choices are not attractive. Until you’ve experienced it you just can’t understand it. Going in, before these issues, and didn’t know anything, I had strong feelings like you about meds. Like most things, the more you know, the more complex it gets. People who know little think they know the most - because they have no idea of what they don’t know.

l’d have reservations about giving a kid hormone therapy, but after how many suicide attempts do you consider it? That seems like hyperbole but for parents of kids with mental health issues it isn’t.

 

She tried to explain to him how they establish standards of care, and he cut her off. It's unsurprising that would happen. These Congressional hearings are about political theater, not real factfinding.

Also, your source is lying. He didn't just ask for evidence that gender-affirming care is beneficial. He demanded a very specific type of study (systematic review) that dealt with a very specific subject matter (hormones, surgeries, or puberty blockers). The idea that she has to remember such a specific study off the top of her head or none exists is the sort of idiocy that these politicians play to.

End of the day, Crenshaw talked over the expert when she tried to explain how these things work because he wanted a soundbite. He was playing to his choir. And his choir unsurprisingly lapped it up. But if you want a systematic review that discusses the benefits of gender-affirming care, I am happy to provide one:
A systematic review of psychosocial functioning changes after gender-affirming hormone therapy among transgender people | Nature Human Behaviour
"The most consistent evidence across qualitative and quantitative studies, both cross-sectional and prospective cohorts, is that gender-affirming hormone therapy reduces depressive symptoms and psychological distress, consistent with results of previous systematic reviews."

Now that I've proven Dan Crenshaw wrong, what do I win?

 

Asking someone to name a study like that on the spot is tough. Give that same expert 2 minutes to pull up their personal catalog of read journals and they could respond better. I'm surprised they didn't come more prepared but that being said, I read a few journal articles a week in my discipline and adjacent areas. Over the past 3 years I've probably read over 500 easy. If you asked me to report what one study said, on the spot, I would struggle unless it was a big seminal work. I might remember it exists, but without being able to pull it up for reference it's not like I could recite it to you. So it's kind of a gotcha. All I had to do was a quick google scholar search and I see a number of papers and reviews on the topic. That person should have been more prepared for that question, but just because they got caught flat footed doesn't mean that papers don't exist.

 

Standards of Care - euphemism for mass-injury and death.

 

Another ban enjoined

 

It's pretty much the standard answer they give on this issue when confronted with direct questions about it. It's always an attempt at a big long speech that had nothing to do with question that was asked.

 

Expert witnesses aren't supposed to have some source reference to back up what they're testifying to? That's literally the reason they are there. Hence, "expert witness." A non-expert witness might be caught flat-footed by a question like that, but an expert witness should probably have at least 2 or 3 they can recall off the top of their head.

 

I am glad to see it.

Those that ridicule these procedures and treatments are on the wrong side of science, compassion and tolerance. Imagine a political party full of these people.

 

Here's a more objective article on the study, one without the Post's hackneyed conclusions which are unsupported by the evidence.

More people seeking help for gender dysphoria at younger age - UPI.com

The study:

The mean age of gender dysphoria diagnosis is decreasing