This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Medical checkups for the hormone treatments and getting new prescriptions.
The controls here are not people actively engaging with the healthcare system over several years, as you can tell by the fact that they are controls not receiving ongoing treatment.
Ok let's look at this specific topic, here's a poll from South Carolina which asked
~71% responded should not! Even the republican respondents were a large majority opposing state intervention against parental decision making. This makes sense, the left leaning side are pro trans and the right leaning side is typically in favor of small government. Traditional conservatives typically say "get the fuck away government regulators"
Ok, but this isn't based on your knowledge of the Finnish system, and you don't know for a fact that the pre-intervention group isn't also getting checked up regularly, right?
Yeah, I know. But the finding is based on the raw comparison to the controls, it's based on comparing each of the subgroups (pre- and post-intervention) to the controls. For your objection to be valid, the pre- group would have to be as unlikely to interact with the medical system as the general population. Which would be weird, given that they already entered the system asking for help with dysphoria.
Ok, fair enough, there are apperently similar results for the other side of my question as well. That said, there's also the rest of my argument. For this to be indicative of a general principle being applied, we'd need to see similar support for changing the medical licensing and prescription systems to being purely advisory at most. I doubt that's a very popular idea.
Unless the Finnish system is unique and just prescribes medicine for years without any followup needed, I can say pretty confidently that they are receiving constant checkups.
For what? They aren't receiving a treatment then so what checks up would they be having?
Now hold up, read that again. They can not be both pre and post system.
That's not true. Plenty of people believe in greater medical autonomy under the condition that it is conducted under medical supervision. Now this does change with one major factor, insurance. It is the bill payer who will demand things be "necessary" after all, regardless of beliefs in autonomy. But if someone pays their own way, why not? It actually helps people to ignore the traditional system, like tons of people are losing weight thanks to Cremieux teaching them how to bypass the extremely expensive and often overly gatekept requirements for glp-1s.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link