Thank you to MagicLake for accepting this debate.
Medical Organizations Affirm The Dangers Of Gender Affirming Therapy:
Gender Affirming Therapy is a dangerous, unorthodox "treatment" that has been denounced by the American College of Pediatricians [1] and the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare [2].
The American College of Pediatricians has stated concerning Gender Affirming Therapy:
There is not a single long term study to demonstrate the safety or efficacy of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgeries for transgender-believing youth. This means that youth transition is experimental, and therefore, parents cannot provide informed consent, nor can minors assent to these interventions. Moreover, the best long-term evidence we have among adults shows that medical intervention fails to reduce suicide. [1]
Moreover, the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare concurred in February of 2022:
Based on the results that emerged, the National Board of Health and Welfare's overall conclusion is that the risks of puberty-inhibiting and gender-affirming hormone treatment for those under 18 currently outweigh the possible benefits for the group as a whole. [2]
In addition to these authoritative medical institutions, world-renowned psychologist Dr. Christopher Gillberg, has called Gender Affirming Therapy "one of the biggest scandals in medical history." [3]
Moreover, a peer-reviewed study published in the Dutch Journal of Medicine says Gender Affirming Therapy leads to increased cancer, stroke, deep vein blood clots, and heart disease risk:
Transgender women have a higher risk of venous thromboembolism, stroke and meningioma compared to cisgender men and cisgender women. Compared to cisgender men, transgender women have a higher risk of breast cancer and transgender women > 50 years old have a higher risk of fractures. •Transgender men have a higher risk of myocardial infarction than cisgender women. Their risk of fracture is just as high as that of cisgender women and their risk of breast cancer is lower. [4]
The Serious And Life-threatening Side Effects Of Transgender Medications:
The medications used for Gender Affirming Therapy have dangerous side effects. For instance, Finasteride (a.k.a. Proscar) [6] causes prostate cancer, as Drugs.com, the premier pharmaceutical reference monitored by medical institutions states:
Using finasteride may increase your risk of developing a serious form of prostate cancer. Ask your doctor about this risk. [5]
Another medication commonly used in Gender Affirming Therapy, Estradiol, [6] increases risks of strokes, blood clots, and heart attacks. As per Drugs.com:
Using this medicine can increase your risk of blood clots, stroke, or heart attack. You are even more at risk if you have high blood pressure, diabetes, high cholesterol, if you are overweight, or if you smoke. [7]
And Medroxyprogesterone, another medication administered for Gender Affirming Therapy, [6] is known to increase risk for dementia, heart disease, and strokes:
Medroxyprogesterone should not be used to prevent heart disease, stroke, or dementia. This medicine may actually increase your risk of developing these conditions. [8]
Studies Confirm Gender Affirming Surgery Is Dangerous And Filled With Post-Surgical Complications
A peer-reviewed study published in 2019 in the journal Annals of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery found that Gender Affirming Surgeries carry a dangerously high risk of infection and hematoma:
In 37% of patients we had repeated compressive dressings and 15% of them required blood transfusions. Eighteen percent of patients presented with hematoma and 27% with early infectious complications. Delayed short-depth neovagina occurred in 21% of patients, requiring additional hard dilatation, with a 95.5% success rate. Total secondary vaginoplasty rate was 6.3% (4.7% skin graft and 3.7% bowel plasty). [9]
Additionally, an article published in the Journal The Linacre Quarterly reports the dangerous psychological state that Gender Affirming Surgery leaves patients in:
As stated by the authors, “At the most simple level, these data suggest that significant change in adjustment scores may be achieved either through surgery or through the passage of time in association with some contact and acceptance into an organized evaluation program” (Meyer and Reter 1979). The conclusion was that SRS was not successful in treating this condition and led to the discontinuation of SRS at Johns Hopkins.
In spite of these early findings, and lack of contravening evidence that SRS conveyed any benefits compared with any unoperated-upon control groups, the practice of SRS has continued and has been extended into younger age groups. In a 2015, Boston study of 180 transsexual youth who had undergone SRS (106 female-to-male; 74 male-to-female), these youth had a twofold to threefold increased risk of psychiatric disorders, including depression, anxiety disorder, suicidal ideation, suicide attempt, self-harm without lethal intent, and both inpatient and outpatient mental health treatment compared to a control group of youth (Reisner et al. 2015). [10]
CONCLUSION: Gender Affirming Therapy Is Dangerous, Scientifically Unfounded, And A Public Health Threat
The consensus of authorities, peer-reviewed research, and experts all agree that Gender Affirming Surgery is dangerous and ineffective to treat the crippling psychological problem of gender dysphoria.
SOURCES:
That's the only way one could argue a topic like this. The trouble with doing so is two-fold.
One, the way that Pro has defined "dangerous." If any gender affirming therapy is hazardous to personal health, then it doesn't matter if they better than the alternative. Pro affirms the resolution based on that definition regardless because the practice is still dangerous even if we deem it net beneficial. He had the opportunity to define dangerous differently in order to engage with the possibility that, if taken as a net value, gender affirming therapy is less dangerous than the alternative of doing nothing, though with this definition, that type of argument is effectively off topic. As written, the topic requires that Pro present what is dangerous in gender affirming therapy, and subsequently requires that Con prove that those dangers are nonexistent.
Two, Pro has also restricted the type of argumentation that can be had in this debate, stating that Pro may ONLY argue regarding the dangers of gender affirming therapy and Con may ONLY argue that those are not actually dangers. That means that he has actively disallowed, in the rules of this debate, the type of argument you're talking about. If Con argues that it is more dangerous for these people not to pursue gender affirming therapy, then Con is arguing outside of the bounds of their required stance, since that doesn't directly counter the existence of these dangers. Pro can and likely will argue that such arguments go against the rules of the debate. Even if he doesn't, many voters may note that rule and hold Con to it. At minimum, that means that Con would likely sacrifice the conduct point to simply make this argument, though many voters may simply disregard all arguments that stray outside of the stances laid out in the rules.
I did no such thing. Something is either dangerous or is not dangerous. Also, there is nothing in this debate saying a person cannot argue thresholds of dangerousness.
Because, technically speaking, breathing is dangerous in a city. But that is a really absurd take on breathing.
If that was your aim, then you should have probably set the bar higher for yourself. As is, you’ve made it so that any arguments to that effect are extra topical - they’re not relevant to whether or not you win this debate because all you have to do to win is show that any of the procedures involved in gender affirming therapy are dangerous. Demonstrating that there’s nothing good about it is even outside the bounds of what you’ve allowed yourself to argue under “STANCES” unless it directly relates to what is dangerous.
Everything is dangerous. You can kill someone with an apple by smashing it over one's nape. Yet these greedy fruit companies are keep selling those damn apples, how dare they!
Everything is dangerous. You can kill someone with an apple by smashing it over one's nape. Yet these greedy fruit companies are keep selling those damn apples, how dare they!
There is nothing good about it. And that is what this debate will prove
JUST say sum like "the goods of Gender Affirming Therapy is better than the bads" so then Larney can accept. ( he still wont tho you watch )
Yeah… the way this is framed is, effectively, a truism. Since you’ve restricted all arguments to issues of whether or not any gender affirming practice is hazardous, you’re requiring your opponent to argue that any and all surgeries, procedures and medications associated with the practice present no hazards, which is impossible. Someone could argue that it’s worth the risk, but you’ve barred that argument from the debate.
> including surgery
Surgery is dangerous. Frequently less dangerous than the alternative, but still dangerous.