Conservative

389 readers

77 users here now

A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff

Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.
We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.
Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.

A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Review of suicides and gender dysphoria at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust: independent report (www.gov.uk)

submitted 4 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

12 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The summary:

The data do not support the claim that there has been a large rise in suicide in young gender dysphoria patients at the Tavistock.

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.

The claims that have been placed in the public domain do not meet basic standards for statistical evidence.

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.

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] -5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

That's not at odds with the article. The article refutes a claim that there was a surge in suicides due to inability to access puberty blockers. It doesn't touch on broader subjects like being called what you'd like.

[+] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] [email protected] -3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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?