[dragonwriter]

> Not providing a 10 year old with puberty blockers when you suspect that it is because the child has been manipulated into believing that they have gender dysphoria is practicing medicine.

Not if there is no reasonable basis for that suspicion; in that case, it is just practicing bigotry.

> Parents with Munchausen’s manipulating their prepubescent children into socially transitioning is a good explanation for the rise in prepubscent children socially transitioning.

Without a causal mechanism to explain the increase in both the incidence of the disorder and that particular manifestation, its a pretty crappy explanation, when “people become more likely to report symptoms that they actually have when the social stigma of reporting those symptoms is reduced and awareness exists of treatments that mitigate the symptoms” is a much better explanation with a clear causal mechanism for the upswing in reports of gender dysphoria.

[ouid]

> there is no reasonable basis for that suspicion

There is absolutely a reasonable basis for that suspicion. There are simply many times more prepubescent children with claims of gender dysphoria than at any other point.

How effective a test is for diagnosis depends heavily on what my priors are about the population it is applied to. If I were to administer an HIV test to every American adult, and then started everyone who got a positive result back with antiretrovirals, I would almost mostly be giving that treatment to people without HIV. This is true even though the test is very accurate. If the number of people walking into gender clinics goes up by a factor of 5, I cannot, a priori, expect that my test has the same predictive power that it used to.

> is a much better explanation with a clear causal mechanism

A priori, they are both good explanations. An explanation is good if it's simple, predictive, and you do not have the data to disprove it. The way we distinguish between competing good explanations is through testing. So far no one has proposed a test to tell the two hypotheses apart, except perhaps to look at the rate of detransitioning among the cohort of recent transitioners. This data has yet to become available, as it requires longitudinal study, but the leading signs are not necessarily in favor of your hypothesis. https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/107/10/e4261/6604653

[CRConrad]

> > Parents with Munchausen’s manipulating their prepubescent children into socially transitioning is a good explanation for the rise in prepubscent children socially transitioning.

> Without a causal mechanism to explain the increase in both the incidence of the disorder and that particular manifestation, its a pretty crappy explanation

Eh, what? It's right there in what you replied to: The manipulation is the causal mechanism.

[figlett5]

> in that case, it is just practicing bigotry

You people are like broken records, honestly. Any criticism automatically becomes bigotry or hate or genocide or whatever. It's absurd.

[dragonwriter]

You really need to learn to understand how conditional statements work.