Most active commenters
  • kennywinker(6)
  • beejiu(4)

←back to thread

Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online

(ellsberg.substack.com)
693 points macawfish | 18 comments | 12 Jul 25 18:14 UTC | HN request time: 1.758s | source | bottom
1. giingyui ◴[12 Jul 25 23:04 UTC] No.44545952[source]▶
I always wonder if these arguments are ever made in good faith. Comparing a treatment for diabetes to HRT. But there are people who really are off the deep end. So who knows.
replies(1): >>44546014 #
2. beejiu ◴[12 Jul 25 23:05 UTC] No.44545963[source]▶
Yes, it should apply to all medical treatments targeted at children, since children don't have developed critical thinking skills.

Do you think it's appropriate for random people to tell a 10 year old how to take their insulin? I don't.

replies(4): >>44546023 #>>44546043 #>>44546354 #>>44548409 #
3. kennywinker ◴[12 Jul 25 23:09 UTC] No.44545993{3}[source]▶
Given how many trans kids commit suicide when prevented from transitioning, i’d say both save lives. And that’s why i’m ok with it. Because going on puberty blockers until you’re 18 seems like a very non-invasive way to thread the needle of patient care for minors
replies(1): >>44546032 #
4. kennywinker ◴[12 Jul 25 23:12 UTC] No.44546014{3}[source]▶
Made in good faith. And HRT is very rarely given to minors. The standard of care is puberty blockers until their 18.

Question about your good faith:

Do you have a problem with puberty blockers when given to non-trans kids? I.e. for precocious puberty

5. kennywinker ◴[12 Jul 25 23:14 UTC] No.44546023{3}[source]▶
I mean at least you’re consistent - even if you want to ban diabetics from chatting about their care online.
6. beejiu ◴[12 Jul 25 23:15 UTC] No.44546032{4}[source]▶
The recent UK Cass Review concluded "It has been suggested that hormone treatment reduces the elevated risk of death by suicide in this population, but the evidence found did not support this conclusion."

Do you have any counter-evidence?

replies(2): >>44546044 #>>44546854 #
7. Kinrany ◴[12 Jul 25 23:16 UTC] No.44546043{3}[source]▶
I agree, but it can go too far as well. It's not healthy for children to be limited to knowing only their parents' and the government's opinions on serious topics. There has to be a balance between avoiding indoctrination and being aware of brain development schedule.
replies(1): >>44546072 #
8. kennywinker ◴[12 Jul 25 23:16 UTC] No.44546044{5}[source]▶
Yes: the cass review is very badly done and misinterprets the data available.
replies(1): >>44546083 #
9. beejiu ◴[12 Jul 25 23:21 UTC] No.44546072{4}[source]▶
I somewhat agree, but exposure to global online content is hardly natural in terms of brain development.
10. beejiu ◴[12 Jul 25 23:22 UTC] No.44546083{6}[source]▶
So you have no counter evidence?
replies(2): >>44546153 #>>44557243 #
11. mandmandam ◴[12 Jul 25 23:34 UTC] No.44546153{7}[source]▶
If you actually wanted counter evidence I'm sure you could find it yourself. There's enough of it out there.

So, what is it that you're actually looking for?

12. Hikikomori ◴[13 Jul 25 00:13 UTC] No.44546354{3}[source]▶
And if doctors develop treatment plans for trans children its ok?
13. protocolture ◴[13 Jul 25 00:33 UTC] No.44546442{3}[source]▶
>One treatment saves lives, other “treatment” essentially shortens your lifespan, and most likely causing you to never have kids again.

The older I get, the more I understand people who prefer quality of life, over longevity.

14. uv-depression ◴[13 Jul 25 01:56 UTC] No.44546854{5}[source]▶
Not the person you were replying to, but the Cass review was quite clearly bunk. Its main thrust is essentially: "there are no double blind studies on the effects of affirming care for minors, so we should stop prescribing it immediately". Aside from the fact that the conclusion does not follow from the premise, how exactly could one do a double blind study on puberty blockers? So the report throws out essentially the entire body of research for failing to meet an impossible to meet standard.

Here's more information: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12874-025-02581-7

replies(1): >>44552079 #
15. jmb99 ◴[13 Jul 25 07:57 UTC] No.44548409{3}[source]▶
> since children don't have developed critical thinking skills.

So should everyone under the age of 25 (roughly when your brain becomes fully developed) be prohibited from talking about any kind of medical treatment?

Also, how do you expect people to develop critical thinking skills if they’re never presented with challenging concepts or, you know, required to think critically about things?

16. bobalob ◴[13 Jul 25 17:44 UTC] No.44552079{6}[source]▶
> So the report throws out essentially the entire body of research for failing to meet an impossible to meet standard.

This is disinformation that is easily shown to be false if you read the final report.

In fact this lie was so widely disseminated that the authors felt they had to address it in the FAQs on the Review website: https://cass.independent-review.uk/home/publications/final-r...

> Did the Review reject studies that were not double blind randomised control trials in its systematic review of evidence for puberty blockers and masculinising / feminising hormones?

> No. There were no randomised control studies identified in the systematic reviews, but other types of studies were included if they were well designed and conducted.

replies(1): >>44557215 #
17. kennywinker ◴[14 Jul 25 07:05 UTC] No.44557215{7}[source]▶
https://osf.io/preprints/osf/uhndk_v1

CRITICALLY APPRAISING THE CASS REPORT: METHODOLOGICAL FLAWS AND UNSUPPORTED CLAIMS

18. kennywinker ◴[14 Jul 25 07:10 UTC] No.44557243{7}[source]▶
Let me google that for you:

https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-health-and-wellness/horm...

And on the subject of the (methodologically trash) cass report:

https://osf.io/preprints/osf/uhndk_v1

CRITICALLY APPRAISING THE CASS REPORT: METHODOLOGICAL FLAWS AND UNSUPPORTED CLAIMS