this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2024
4 points (56.2% liked)

Conservative

389 readers
77 users here now

A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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]
[email protected]
[email protected]
4
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:

  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.
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -3 points 4 months ago (2 children)

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.

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

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.