Gender Affirming Therapy Is Dangerous

Thanks all!

Full forfeiture. Can one of you vote?

Make sure you remind me in a month. I may forget. I have a lot of stuff going on right now lol

Alright.

Well I'd want them to be clearly defined. But this will likely be in another month. I have one with Whiteflame scheduled next.

We can do a debate on chemotherapy then - the harms and benefits are fairly well-defined.

Though I do not think the benefits of chemotherapy outweigh the harms, considering there are two other proven cancer treatments that have been shown to work. But they were abandoned because they are insanely cheap and therefore not a moneymaker like chemotherapy, which literally poisons people.

The problem with that is that it opens the door to relativistic debates. What I consider a harm could be a benefit to you and vice versa. So nothing would really be accomplished.

Other than that, the definitions and rules look fine.

I would like the resolution to be changed somewhat. Any treatment, including widely accepted ones like chemotherapy for cancer, can be "dangerous", as whiteflame and I independently noted. However, chemotherapy is used because the benefits far outweigh the harms.

Therefore, how about the resolution, "On balance, the benefits of gender-affirming therapy outweigh the harms." It's fair, serves the same intended purpose without allowing semantic arguments, and shares the burden of proof.

Yeah we could do that. Do you want the terms to be the same as for this debate?

We could do a 2-week debate if you're worried about being overscheduled. Of course, if you want to do just one debate at a time, then that's totally fine.

Yeah sure. I already have another debate Scheduled with Whiteflame, but after that I could.

Unfortunate that your opponent forfeited all rounds of an interesting debate. Would you be willing to debate the same topic with me?

I think we both agree then.

I support telling them to do their own research and make their own choices. I personally think that if I felt as dysphoric as trans people have described, I would be willing to take those risks to be happier, but that is a decision that each person has to make, not have it forced upon them.
I spent enough of my life being forced to do things I didn't believe in to ever wish it on anyone else.

Do you support telling people with gender dysphoria that gender-affirming therapy is a safe and legitimate therapy method? Or do you support telling them that it is dangerous, experimental, and not effective?

Because, until now, it sounds like you are for the former and not the latter. If I am wrong about your stance then so be it.

Appears it is to YOU who is NOT listening.

We cannot let anyone on the lunatic fringe do whatever the hell they want, because it spills over onto the rest of us through social, medical and legal contagions. Which is precisely what’s been happening. They cause a sane world to move closer and closer to a mad mad world.

"Your solution is to promote dangerous and experimental medial treatments and call it "gender affirming therapy." That seems to be your solution."
Since you're not listening to me, I see no reason to further this conversation.

Couldn't agree with you more!

Your solution is to promote dangerous and experimental medial treatments and call it "gender affirming therapy." That seems to be your solution.

I am perfectly fine with a consenting adult doing something. But to pretend that slapping on a pair of tits, wearing a dress, and taking estrogen and cutting off your dick is some sort of medical care is dangerous, enabling, and not promoting healthy behavior.

If, after someone hears all of the dangers and risks that could come from gender affirming therapy, and listens to how psychotherapy could be beneficial and is safe, effective, and prevents suicide and alleviates depression, and they still choose the dangerous, unsafe, and experimental option, then that is their choice.

But I'm not for lying to people just to get them to take a treatment. Gender affirming therapy is not safe. It isn't effective. And it is highly experimental. This is the truth.

"My solution is to let consenting adults do whatever the hell they want with their own bodies."

And yet the GREATEST push here is upon children with the blessing of adults.

CHILD ABUSE!!!!

My solution is to let consenting adults do whatever the hell they want with their own bodies.

So your solution is to push people toward dangerous, experimental therapy solutions when a perfectly safe and tested solution is already available?

Again, listing the side effects of a specific drug that is sometimes used for gender-affirming therapy doesn't prove that ALL gender-affirming therapy is dangerous, and especially more dangerous than other forms of elective treatments such as cosmetic surgery.
Furthermore, Spironolactone has also used to treat high blood pressure and acne and has been in use since the 50s, but as soon as it's used in HRT, it's a problem?

Moreover, some common side effect of Spironolactone is vaginal bleeding, and painful breasts.

And medline lists these serious side effects as well:
muscle weakness, pain, or cramps
pain, burning, numbness, or tingling in the hands or feet
inability to move arms or legs
changes in heartbeat
confusion
nausea
extreme tiredness
dry mouth, thirst, dizziness, unsteadiness, headache, or other signs of dehydration
unusual bleeding or bruising
lack of energy
loss of appetite
pain in the upper right part of the stomach
yellowing of the skin or eyes
flu-like symptoms
rash
hives
itching
difficulty breathing or swallowing
vomiting blood
blood in stools
decreased urination
fainting

Is the price for gender affirmation worth vaginal bleeding, inability to move arms and legs, and vomiting blood? Maybe psychoanalysis for gender dysphoria, which is significantly less dangerous, is the safer option.

"It's ranked higher than drugs.com"

Drugs.com contains info from:
"Data sources include IBM Watson Micromedex (updated 1 Nov 2022), Cerner Multum™ (updated 23 Nov 2022), ASHP (updated 11 Nov 2022) and others."

Moreover it is recommended as a good drug reference by the FDA:
https://www.fda.gov/drugs/frequently-asked-questions-popular-topics/how-can-i-stay-better-informed-about-drugs-there-reliable-website-fda-recommends

"steps to affirm their gender."

This used to be called gender dysphoria for a reason. There are a plethora of natural chemical, biological, and hormonal processes that are designed to work in-tandem with a person's natural sex. But deep psychological trauma or other psychological issues can disrupt your body's natural processes and provide unnecessary stressors yo your body, which can result in seeking dangerous, experimental treatments such as medications known to cause cancer, strokes, blood clots, and more, or a surgery known for resulting in unusually high rates of infection, blood transfusions, and other serious issues.

Honestly, I think the most important thing to realize about gender-affirming therapy is that more cis people undergo it than trans people. Any biological female who wears makeup, gets breast implants, etc., is taking steps to affirm their gender. Similarly, men who take testosterone to compensate for a hormonal disorder is receiving gender affirming therapy.
Obviously these are less extreme than bottom surgery, but they are still gender-affirming care.

"the University of California San Francisco medical center isn't even ranked top 10 in the nation and isn't even in the top 3 in California"

It's ranked higher than drugs.com

Additionally, the University of California San Francisco medical center isn't even ranked top 10 in the nation and isn't even in the top 3 in California:
https://health.usnews.com/best-hospitals/area/ca/ucsf-medical-center-6930043

If that's the case then why does hormone therapy for trans people repeatedly show an increase in dangerous health symptoms:
"Existing epidemiological data suggest that the use of (certain) estrogens in trans women induces an increased risk of myocardial infarction and stroke, the reason that lifestyle management can be an integral part of trans health care."
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34982475/

Yes, drugs.com *screams* reputability.

UCSF lists Spironolactone as the most common androgen blocker, in the same category as finasteride.

https://transcare.ucsf.edu/guidelines/feminizing-hormone-therapy

Pointing to specific treatments used today that have risks doesn't prove that gender-affirming therapy is dangerous in and of itself. Simply supplementing estrogen has no more risks for young trans woman than it does for older menopausal women who take the same medication. No surgery is without risk, and top surgery is a relatively safe procedure compared to many operations.
And surgeries only get safer over time. In 1971 the survival rate one year after a heart transplant was 37-42%. It is now 84.5% (study from 2015), more than double.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7944212/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4387387/

It is still listed on drugs.com as a more popular drug choice

I know they're different. However, many go on to surgery even after HRT. Furthermore, finasteride is a fairly uncommon choice for HRT as it doesn't actually block testosterone, only DHT.

Considering Finasteride is used for hormone therapy, in many cases they do still have a penis.

Hormone therapy and Gender Affirming Surgery are different.

"Finasteride (a.k.a. Proscar) [6] causes prostate cancer"
Sounds like a problem only if you keep your penis ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

@Self
Pro life doesn't tend to see pregnancy and childbirth as significant enough risk, 'not to, if already.
Many individuals have preformed on them aesthetic surgery, 'many individuals.
Hazardous sounds vague enough in this debate, that activity can be argued against being 'excessively hazardous. (Though 'what excessive means, is subjective)

Your choice.

I'd rather have an actual debate on a topic we're both interested in than test whether you have a substantive argument you could use to win your own debate as Con, so I'll have to decline.

Are you willing to accept a copy debate on this as pro after I finish this one?

Guess that depends on the voter. In my case, I’m a stickler for definitions and, where they’re specific, rules. From that perspective I can’t see a way around what you’ve given, though if you’re willing to stretch it, I’m sure you can find material to work with that some voters would see as valid.

No. I think it is winnable from a non-semantic angle

Yes, you’ve already mentioned the semantic angle. It doesn’t require a Kritik, and if you want to spend the debate breaking down the word “dangerous,” it’s a fine way to infuriate your opponent. Not interested. If you’re thinking of some other way, I can’t see it.

I wouldn't kritik. There's a legitimate way to win this debate as CON.

I guess we just disagree on the framing of this debate then. The general topic of gender affirming therapy certainly should include that kind of discussion, and despite the framing, I hope that Con provides that kind of argumentation, even if it can’t net them the debate.

Sorry, deleted my comment of, something like,
Don't trans often claim surgery is necessary, otherwise many individuals kill themselves,
So Con just needs prove not having surgery is more dangerous than, not having surgery.

I forget 'why I deleted it, been awake a while, fell asleep afterward.

As Intelligence_06 says, everything is dangerous,
So the definition by Pro doesn't bother me, one just uses common sense with it,

If someone has a debate that claims medical surgery is dangerous,
I see no problem with a person admitting danger, but then pointing out person with certain bad heart,
I don't see heart issue as unrelated to question of surgery being dangerous or not.

I'm not really interested in doing that, since the way you're talking about winning on Con requires either a Kritik (which you've disallowed) or a debate that focuses largely on semantics, which I don't find interesting nor productive. If you truly think this is winnable for Con without engaging in either one of those, then we're simply not looking at the same resolution or the same rule set.

I will literally accept a debate with you with me as con on this to show you how it is winnable. Same prompt and description. I will just be con instead of pro.

And it'll have to be after this one is finished.

I mean, yes? I think you're making my point for me. I don't see anywhere in your description where you even allow your opponent to make the type of argument that balances the dangers of not getting gender affirming therapy against getting it. If anything, I see you actively disallowing that kind of argument, since they're only allowed to "argue that Gender Affirming Therapy is NOT Dangerous", making any points regarding its benefits extra topical and actively against the rules you've laid out. Saying that they can argue thresholds of dangerousness seems kind of pointless when it's an established fact that surgery comes with substantial dangers, regardless of the purpose. Claiming that your opponent can take the position that those dangers are below a threshold that should be considered "dangerous" is not particularly reasonable, but I agree that it is the only way that they could possibly come out on top, just not one that's likely to be at all fruitful.