New Threats to LGBTQIA+ Healthcare | FFRF’s Ask An Atheist 

And housing and education and food and safety. Noblesse oblige: The obligation of those who possess great power. Those who have power must decide to use that power to harm or protect the week. Our culture makes sure that people with power only use that power to protect the powerful and trample upon the weak.

@@gabrielmaroto18 💯

You don't want the Bible in schools we don't want pride flags in schools. It should work both ways.

PS I am a bisexual woman, you don't want religion taught to your kids behind your back, I don't want LGBTQ subjects taught to my kids behind my back.

​@@devin_97expressing yourself isn't a religion. You are such a moron

​@@devin_97people are born different, where would it be easiest to prepare them if they come out to teachers who care about them and need guidance? Lots of Christian parents will not approve, trying to manipulate their child and end up making their lives terrible when someone could've actually talked to them about how they feel in an educational setting, lots of parents are just unfit. Religion takes over people's lives and is a fairy tale, people don't want it pushed because it has no relevance to education or mental health.

​@@devin_97you are pushing people to be suicidal if we listened to you.

Saying "you can't be sad because someone has it worse" is like saying "you can't be happy because someone has it better".

Cuba actually has good healthcare lol

Not sure about the FFRF, but researchers from Yale released a pretty extensive critique on the Cass Review. It is important to note that the Cass Review disregarded proper protocol in the implementation of its systemic reviews with respect to how they applied the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. There were also severe biases in how they obtained studies for inclusion within the review. They did not include a great deal of newer studies, nor did they include non-English study (which they had the full capacity to do given the amount of funding that they received). They also placed very little emphasis on qualitative research and did not consider the collective results parsimoniously. A substantial percentage of pediatric care is built upon an evidence base that could be considered "very low quality" or "lower quality", if we are borrowing the language of the GRADE framework. However, the reason we can establish strong recommendations based upon relatively weak studies is because we consider their results in tandem, not in isolation. All research studies have flaws -- some more than others. But where some studies have one flaw, other studies account for these flaws. A large base of research which considers a particular theory from a variety of angles, upon converging unto a single conclusion, is a process known as pattern and parsimony. It is one of the few exceptions where correlation can indeed be used to infer causation, where normally it otherwise would be unable to. So even evidence with a weaker ability to demonstrate causation can be used in a complementary fashion in order to strengthen or weaken a standing theoretical model.

​@jennosyde709 While I respect Yale's education, I don't trust Yale's partnerships with certain medical corporations, like Abbvie, makers of puberty suppressing drug Lupron. It's a conflict of interest IMO. Abbvie makes more money when its financial partner, Yale, a well-respected name in health, endorses Lupron/the "need" for children to buy and take Lupron. It's in Yale's best financial interest to criticize the Cass Review, which is why I don't put much faith in Yale to be unbiased here.

@@keke8880 It ultimately does not matter what their partnerships are if the critique itself is structurally valid. And in general, you are going to find inevitably find links between medical providers, pharmaceuticals, and medical/psychological organizations. These communities are closely linked with one another, sine they are dependent upon one another to function. And this critique was not just supported by Yale. WPATH, the Endocrine Society, the American Academy of Pediatrics, Amnesty International, and the British Association of Gender Identity Specialists have all voiced criticism of the review. The review did not correctly apply the standards of the New-Ottawa Scale, it was systematically biased in how it conducted its systemic reviews, and the review undermines the power of parsimony, which the basis for a tremendous amount of currently-standing medical protocols for both youth and adults across a wide range of medical fields. It also advocates for (strongly implied) conversion therapy efforts with zero evidence to support for their effectiveness, while holding GAC to an ethically and logistically impossible standard.

As someone who has received GAC myself, this is not the case. GAC involves an extensive review of one's psychological history, current mental state, capacity to consent, desires for transition, transition goals, etc. And this was as an adult; the process is typically even more stringent for trans youth.

Of you talk to trans people or their Healthcare providers, you'll know that the average trans person requires months or years of evaluation before acquiring GAC. Very sad to see misinformation spreading to deny Healthcare needs

@@kahlilbt if I don't agree with it it is misinformation. If I can make up anything and just say anything to show, I can prove it is information misinformation. If I can get a fact checker who is called a fact checker by people I like, I can show that it is not factual. This is a wonderful, wonderful world of woo.

@@Iamjamessmith1 You literally wrote "doctors will be jailed for asking about the patient" be that demonstrates the low level of seriousness we're dealing with here.

Yes. Their channel is "Freedom From Religion Foundation," not "Freedom From ONLY Christianity Foundation." The biggest religious threat in specifically the US (where this channel is based) is Christianity. Most lawmakers and people in power in the US are Christian Nationalists. Islam, Judaism, and Buddhism aren't without their problems-- and problematic followers--though.

Just FYI, the suicide rate remains about the same in long term studies of trans-identified people who take hormones or have surgery

@@keke8880 This is incorrect, especially when looking into more modern research. This myth arises from older studies on gender-affirming bottom surgery specifically, in which people conflated older and newer cohorts with one another. The only other exception that I can think of was a study performed predominantly by members of an anti-trans think tank in which the researchers engaged in p-hacking in order to fish for a desired outcome by overcontrolling variables in a regression. Pretty overwhelmingly, research shows lower rates of suicidal intend post transition and higher quality of mental health. Cross-sectional data also reveals lower suicide rates among trans people who have transitioned when compared to those who want to transition but have yet to.

@keke8880 no it doesn't.the rates go down by very significant margins. Even more so when you account for suicide due to social innaceptance.

@group555_ Yup. Also, when we consider the cross-sectional data, the difference in rates between trans people with GAC is substantially lower compared to those who want GAC care but have yet to receive it. We see this in recent research across state lines regarding health care bans for trans youth.

Trans s* rates remain high because of social and legal opposition to trans care and public existence. Let's end that.

No it isn’t. Your priorities should lie elsewhere. Go do something productive with your life.

Keep government out of *adults'* healthcare decisions.

@@billtruttschel Nah, keep the government out of healthcare decisions. Legislators and judges rarely ever have the medical knowledge to be deciding on behalf of children what is best for their personal situations. This is precisely one way we end up with children not being allowed to assent to having abortions.

@@JohnMichaelBurns Mutilating children and preventing their puberty is not "healthcare." It's barbaric.

Does this mean the govt not being allowed to require people to take part in medical experiments as a condition to take part in society? Think about that one for a sec….