The summary:

  1. The data do not support the claim that there has been a large rise in suicide in young gender dysphoria patients at the Tavistock.
  2. The way that this issue has been discussed on social media has been insensitive, distressing and dangerous, and goes against guidance on safe reporting of suicide.
  3. The claims that have been placed in the public domain do not meet basic standards for statistical evidence.
  4. There is a need to move away from the perception that puberty-blocking drugs are the main marker of non-judgemental acceptance in this area of health care.
  5. We need to ensure high quality data in which everyone has confidence, as the basis of improved safety for this at risk group of young people.
  • BananaSpike@lemm.eeOP
    14·
    4 months ago

    The entire premise in the article of denying any kind of gender-affirming treatment is what I was responding to

    What? Can you quote any part of the article that tries to deny “any kind of gender-affirming treatment”? Here is the central claim that they’re refuting:

    The central claim, made on X (formerly known as Twitter), is that there has been a large rise in suicide by current and recent patients of the Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) service at the Tavistock since an earlier restriction of puberty-blocking drugs that followed a High Court decision in a case (Bell v Tavistock) in December 2020. The rise is described as a “surge” in suicides and “an explosion”, indicating a substantial and, by implication, unequivocal increase. There are multiple references to children dying in future because they are unable to access puberty-blocking drugs.

    Just refer to people the way they want to be referred to and respect their wishes. Isn’t that what we all want?

    Can you quote any part of the article that conflicts with this statement?

    • BobaFuttbucker@reddthat.com
      71·
      4 months ago

      You want me to use your own source to argue with you so you don’t have to read your own source?

      Lol nah. That’s on you.

      • BananaSpike@lemm.eeOP
        25·
        4 months ago

        I’m not sure why the hostility? I’ve read the source, and you either didn’t read it or misunderstood it. Nowhere does it say what you’re claiming it says, you’re welcome to disprove that with quotes.

        For anybody else reading this, if you doubt that the above commenter misunderstood the article, you can just read it. It’s not very long.

        • BobaFuttbucker@reddthat.com
          72·
          4 months ago

          I’m not sure why you think I’m being hostile? I’m simply arguing against the core of the issue, rather than the specific suicide statistic of the article and have stated as much. I just refuse to look through your own source for you.

          If you think that’s hostile then maybe you should analyze your emotional reaction to text comments on the internet?

        • Neuromancer@lemm.eeM
          27·
          4 months ago

          I don’t see where his claim is supported in the article. That’s why I don’t reply to him as it’s a waste of time.