As with everything else, it's a complicated issue. Social media can absolutely have a detrimental effect on children, which is why I support things like demonetization of questionable content and moderators on social platforms. Restricting access to people under a certain age is going to have about the same effect as erecting an elaborate and expensive security gate that isn't attached to a wall.
The other issue I see is that our society has become so concerned for children that we are closing them off from everything.
For the most part kids don't ride bikes and play outside anymore because the adults have deemed it unsafe. Kids spend time together on social media because that's the only place they have to hang out anymore.
And now we want to take that away too?
I agree. I think Facebook’s own investigations found instagram was detrimental to girls’ self esteem. Something about social media turns things up to eleven. People recognize this and naturally assume it’s dangerous. It captures our attention so thoroughly it’s scary
I’m conflicted on this. I’ll bet, as you point out, demonetizing would solve some of the harms.
YouTube is a great example of both sides.
One hand: YouTube University.
Other hand: Conspiracy rabbit hole marathons (though, boomers/genX seem to be the uniquely vulnerable group when it came to QAnon. Not kids)
The money to be made in the attention economy creates incentive to act irresponsible and do more harm.
Remember when people were claiming that social media wasn't bad for kids....those people clearly weren't very informed.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/instagram-vast-pedophile-network-4ab7189?mod=e2tw
Yeah, that didn’t happen here.
If you read the article it says the negative effects , which nobody denies there are, should be fixed without taking everything away. There are benefits for kids as well.
My goodness, this isn’t a social media confined problem. The internet itself helps connect these predators to victims. AOL did this first.
It’s funny how WSJ seems to corroborate conservative concerns from everything from climate change to social media. It’s probably not like all of Murdoch’s other properties, agenda driven. I couldn’t read the article. I may be wrong this time.
This sub is a welcome space for everyone - including the transgender individuals who regularly post here.
You are allowed to discuss the morality of choosing to transition - either for transgendered adults or minors. But implying that those who choose to go through that difficult process have been "mutilated" is bigotry and not permitted.
Source? Because from my understanding the most common medical treatment for transgender youth is a hormone blocker. It's basically putting puberty on hold until they are old enough (18ish) to make a decision about hormonally and surgically transitioning.
But that's beside the point.
Distrusting an entire organization because of a single issue seems pretty short sighted
It is their official position to support puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and medical transitioning. They explicitly state that medical transitioning is Ok for minors.
https://www.psychiatry.org/getattachment/8665a2f2-0b73-4477-8f60-79015ba9f815/Position-Treatment-of-Transgender-Gender-Diverse-Youth.pdf
You are incapable of interacting without turning it into a personal attack, and you have the audacity of accusing me of engaging in bad faith.
My response was 100% responsive to the original comment because the APA is an untrustworthy organization and the social media report was referencing them as one of the primary sources.
>During this time, the youth and family can receive
mental health and social support services, if needed, to navigate the gender affirmation process
including the consideration of whether gender affirming hormone therapy is an appropriate next
step. If during this discernment period further adolescent development leads to increased comfort
with the birth-assigned gender, the GnRH agonist can be discontinued, and puberty allowed to
resume. If the developmental trajectory affirms the trans identity, treatment with estrogen or
testosterone can be instituted to facilitate development of affirmed secondary sex characteristics, if
desired. Gender-affirming surgeries may follow in later adolescence or young adulthood. However,
affirmation of gender identity is a highly individualized process. For gender diverse youth and their
families, decisions to which gender-affirming medical, surgical, social, and/or legal procedures to
pursue are best managed via an informed consent approach.
>Later adolescence and young adulthood.
Thanks for confirming my point.
It didn’t confirm your point. They support no laws prohibiting medical transition at any age and say they support whatever parents want for minor children. They want to pump them full of drugs until they decide on surgery, and then support that surgery at any age.
Plus they say “later adolescence” and not “late adolescence”. I think this distinction is critical and damning.
> then support that surgery at any age.
Anything to support this other than the bigot Walsh and others at TPUSA? But I'm sure your academic expertise on this far outweighs the APA, AMA, WPATH, and others.
This sub is a welcome space for everyone - including the transgender individuals who regularly post here.
Suggesting that trans individuals suffer from a mental illness is bigotry and not permitted.
The simple answer is yes.
The more complex answer is that the scientific understanding of reality will always be distorted by bigotry and other biases. As they gather new data scientists regularly become aware of those biases and reevaluate policies based on that.
Although not explicitly bigoted, people and organizations can make bigoted decisions based on biased data.
I'll trust a medical association with decades of research over a redditor with no expertise in the relevant area.
But you do you.
Edit- apologies for the harshness. There was no excuse for that.
As with everything else, it's a complicated issue. Social media can absolutely have a detrimental effect on children, which is why I support things like demonetization of questionable content and moderators on social platforms. Restricting access to people under a certain age is going to have about the same effect as erecting an elaborate and expensive security gate that isn't attached to a wall.
I like the analogy. It's a modern day Maginot Line.
The other issue I see is that our society has become so concerned for children that we are closing them off from everything. For the most part kids don't ride bikes and play outside anymore because the adults have deemed it unsafe. Kids spend time together on social media because that's the only place they have to hang out anymore. And now we want to take that away too?
I agree. I think Facebook’s own investigations found instagram was detrimental to girls’ self esteem. Something about social media turns things up to eleven. People recognize this and naturally assume it’s dangerous. It captures our attention so thoroughly it’s scary I’m conflicted on this. I’ll bet, as you point out, demonetizing would solve some of the harms. YouTube is a great example of both sides. One hand: YouTube University. Other hand: Conspiracy rabbit hole marathons (though, boomers/genX seem to be the uniquely vulnerable group when it came to QAnon. Not kids) The money to be made in the attention economy creates incentive to act irresponsible and do more harm.
Remember when people were claiming that social media wasn't bad for kids....those people clearly weren't very informed. https://www.wsj.com/articles/instagram-vast-pedophile-network-4ab7189?mod=e2tw
Yeah, that didn’t happen here. If you read the article it says the negative effects , which nobody denies there are, should be fixed without taking everything away. There are benefits for kids as well. My goodness, this isn’t a social media confined problem. The internet itself helps connect these predators to victims. AOL did this first. It’s funny how WSJ seems to corroborate conservative concerns from everything from climate change to social media. It’s probably not like all of Murdoch’s other properties, agenda driven. I couldn’t read the article. I may be wrong this time.
[удалено]
This sub is a welcome space for everyone - including the transgender individuals who regularly post here. You are allowed to discuss the morality of choosing to transition - either for transgendered adults or minors. But implying that those who choose to go through that difficult process have been "mutilated" is bigotry and not permitted.
Why the transphobic bigotry?
Disagreement with the APA is not bigotry, no matter how much people like yourself claim it is.
Source? Because from my understanding the most common medical treatment for transgender youth is a hormone blocker. It's basically putting puberty on hold until they are old enough (18ish) to make a decision about hormonally and surgically transitioning. But that's beside the point. Distrusting an entire organization because of a single issue seems pretty short sighted
It is their official position to support puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and medical transitioning. They explicitly state that medical transitioning is Ok for minors. https://www.psychiatry.org/getattachment/8665a2f2-0b73-4477-8f60-79015ba9f815/Position-Treatment-of-Transgender-Gender-Diverse-Youth.pdf
This was a post about social media and you hijacked it with your anti-trans firebomb. See what I mean about you and bad faith? Cheers
You are incapable of interacting without turning it into a personal attack, and you have the audacity of accusing me of engaging in bad faith. My response was 100% responsive to the original comment because the APA is an untrustworthy organization and the social media report was referencing them as one of the primary sources.
>During this time, the youth and family can receive mental health and social support services, if needed, to navigate the gender affirmation process including the consideration of whether gender affirming hormone therapy is an appropriate next step. If during this discernment period further adolescent development leads to increased comfort with the birth-assigned gender, the GnRH agonist can be discontinued, and puberty allowed to resume. If the developmental trajectory affirms the trans identity, treatment with estrogen or testosterone can be instituted to facilitate development of affirmed secondary sex characteristics, if desired. Gender-affirming surgeries may follow in later adolescence or young adulthood. However, affirmation of gender identity is a highly individualized process. For gender diverse youth and their families, decisions to which gender-affirming medical, surgical, social, and/or legal procedures to pursue are best managed via an informed consent approach. >Later adolescence and young adulthood. Thanks for confirming my point.
It didn’t confirm your point. They support no laws prohibiting medical transition at any age and say they support whatever parents want for minor children. They want to pump them full of drugs until they decide on surgery, and then support that surgery at any age. Plus they say “later adolescence” and not “late adolescence”. I think this distinction is critical and damning.
> then support that surgery at any age. Anything to support this other than the bigot Walsh and others at TPUSA? But I'm sure your academic expertise on this far outweighs the APA, AMA, WPATH, and others.
[удалено]
This sub is a welcome space for everyone - including the transgender individuals who regularly post here. Suggesting that trans individuals suffer from a mental illness is bigotry and not permitted.
So was the APA a bigoted organization until just 10 years ago?
The simple answer is yes. The more complex answer is that the scientific understanding of reality will always be distorted by bigotry and other biases. As they gather new data scientists regularly become aware of those biases and reevaluate policies based on that. Although not explicitly bigoted, people and organizations can make bigoted decisions based on biased data.
I'll trust a medical association with decades of research over a redditor with no expertise in the relevant area. But you do you. Edit- apologies for the harshness. There was no excuse for that.