[Kye]

There's no denial of the problem, only of the attempt to elevate it into something more common than it is in an obvious ploy to make gender affirming care harder to access with a time-honored "won't someone think of the children!" moral panic that's already having negative effects on adult trans people's access to care.

[ouid]

There is extremely active denial of the problem. The parent comment didn't even consider this as a possibility.

Moreover, your comment is also an example. You can't simultaneously describe yourself as not denying the problem while completely dismissing that problem as "moral panic designed to deprive adults of access to care".

I am completely on board with giving adults access to care. I am significantly more hesitant to give parents access to medical interventions for their children. Please do not warp my words.

PS: You might describe Munchausen's by proxy as a rare condition, but its prevalence is on the order of 1% of the population, which happens to be at parity with the rate of gender dysphoria in the population. It is not a rounding error.

[pseudalopex]

Munchausen's syndrome by proxy is called factitious disorder imposed on another now. The highest estimate I found from a reputable source was 0.04%.[1] Claims on the order of 1% turned out misreported estimates for factitious disorder imposed on self. And most cases of factitious disorder imposed on another involve infants or younger children.

The 1st comment stayed close to the article subject. It presented reason for concern even without speculating about the child's gender dysphoria. Adding that speculation predictably moved the discussion far from the original subject. Not bringing up something at every chance is not denial. Never mind extremely active denial.

[1] https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/9834-factitio...

[CRConrad]

> Munchausen's syndrome by proxy is called factitious disorder imposed on another now.

Honestly, who gives a fuck?

Yeah sorry, that may sound a bit harsh... But really, what's this constant renaming of things supposed to be actually good for? The main effects seem to be:

1) Some people get to feel all good and righteous and “with it”, because they know the PC terminology; and

2) The rest of us are A) either annoyed at i) having to learn new shit again, ii) not getting to be in that hip and in crowd, or above all, iii) how smug and pompous those masters of the PC vocabulary come off, intentionally or unintentionally giving the impression that they look down on us peasants...

Or B) Just confused as to what the fuck they're talking about.

So thank you, I guess, for having taught us – me – this, so I won't look like an ignorant bumpkin next time someone says it... But I would very much have preferred not having to.

[Kye]

>> "Please do not warp my words."

You too?

I've been down this road. I'm not going to say anything that can convince you.

edit: You might want to consider not using the same rhetoric as folks who call people groomers for not wanting kids to kill themselves because they can't get treatment for their dysphoria. Reconsider your sources of information if you sincerely feel hurt by being seen in the same light. You are parroting propaganda.

[ouid]

In response to your edit, which I believe deserves its own response:

I'm basically going to ignore the part where you accuse me of using the "same rhetoric as X". I don't know what that means, or how it's relevant to what we're talking about. I'm certainly not hurt by it, as it doesn't mean anything.

If Adolf Hitler himself arose from the grave to agree with me, and that caused me to change my mind, then I would consider that evidence that I didn't have a good reason to believe it in the first place. This is not the case here.

I am actually pretty skeptical of the claim that the "people calling trans-activists groomers" are making this point. That just sounds like a name that you've given to the entire set of people who disagree with you, regardless of their reason.

Concretely, it seems that we are both of the opinion, based on the content of this comment chain, that it is important for the system to protect children. Either from killing themselves as a result of not being able to receive gender affirming care, or from their parents, who use them as a means of acquiring attention.

My claim is that it is well established that the latter problem exists, and that it exists commonly enough that it is not clear that, even under the most generous assumptions of the causal link between gender affirming care and suicide attempt reduction, that this offsets the damage that is caused by giving Abusive parents this tool.

Moreover, this is clearly not black and white. This is a matter of policy. I am not claiming that it is impossible to protect children from both threats. I am merely claiming that gender affirming care doesn't.

[ouid]

You might want to consider that having trouble convincing other people is explained at least as well by having a bad argument as the other people being bigots.

[jimbokun]

Because you have already decided that anyone who disagrees with you is just participating in a "moral panic".

[Kye]

Not anyone, no.