New poll finds strong majority opposes gender-affirming care bans for trans minors
New poll finds strong majority opposes gender-affirming care bans for trans minors
At the same time, a slim majority calls transitioning "morally wrong."
You're viewing a single thread.
I'm going to say something utterly repulsive:
We should let children have sex with whomever they like if they want. Any age. It's their body.
Did you recoil when you read that? It was hard to type. Why are we letting a child / young adult make a decision that has no undo buttons at such a young age? Do we not agree that our sexuality and minds are brutally unstable at a young age?
If you are of age and consent to a change... you do you. It's your body: nobody can tell you what is right for you. Prior to that? It's the job of the parent to protect them from harmful choices... and in the event they are not of sound mind: the job of the government to step in. This is non negotiable.
Let me be perfectly clear: I get that early on sexuality is confusing, painful, and reality warping. That's universal - regardless of /how/ you identify. We need to teach, guide, and protect our youth at that age... until they are old enough to make those choices themselves.
Now if you flip the script as an adult? We should be adults and respect that choice. Care should be universal.
Edit: Use your words folks. I wrote this to be conversational. Internet points won't change reality. I'm pretty sure I made some sound points.
I don't understand what is so reprehensible about trans kids being able to socially transition to live as their chosen gender? Social transition is clothing and behaviour, not surgical or medical. If the kid doesn't like it, they tried it, found out for themselves, and can stop whenever they want.
And what is so evil about trans kids being able to choose to delay puberty till 18, so they can as legal adults, then decide if they want to safely medically and surgically transition, or not and go through the puberty of their birth gender?
Going through puberty in the wrong body causes unbelievable distress to many trans kids, leading to eating disorders, self harm, suicide, and a whole load of other awful mental and physical problems.
Why is safely alleviating harm to these children by allowing them to socially transition and delay puberty, a bad thing?
No trans child is getting surgery. Puberty blockers are safe and entierly reversible.
Gender affirming care has nothing to do with your disgusting paedophillic fantasies about children, and that you even correlate the two IS reprehensible and very telling of the type of person you are.
.
Intersex children (born with undefined anatomy) get operated on at doctors discretion from their birth onwards, but this isn't a conversation about that, however immoral and harrowing it is.
In essence you are saying that someone as young as 12-14 should have complete autonomy of their sexuality. I need to be very clear here- everyone seems to breeze by this reality. If it's okay to make a lasting change to your sexual presentation at that age we need to by proxy remove any limits placed on sexuality period. The reason is simple: if you are old enough to choose that then you are old enough to have sexual autonomy.
You can't cherry pick - one sexual comfort cannot be placed above another. The reason I picked such a strong and universally reprehensible example is because "Of course that is ridiculous! They just don't know better- we need to protect them." We affirm one while slighting the other. Are they old enough to pick partners and do what they please as they please... or are they not?
Their desires don't have to change but it's our job to give them time to grow into a decision or an identity even - before they make a lasting choice. Being young means making mistakes and trying things. Surgery and chemical therapy are lasting and in some cases permanent. This flies in the face of that reality.
They JUST told you, no one is advocating for surgeries in children. What they are advocating for is what has been done for ages - puberty blockers and therapy until they are of the age to make the decision for themselves.
You keep referring to “surgery” and now “chemical therapy” (I assume you mean hormones), but that’s not at all what is supposed to happen with children, it’s a straw man made up by by the right wing.
You say “it’s our job to give them time to grow into a decision or an identity before making a lasting choice” and that’s EXACTLY what's been happening and is still under assault by these anti-trans laws that keep getting passed in the confederate states.
They don’t want them to exist so they are trying to legislate them away.
Blockers are still a change. Inhibiting your sexuality at that age drives a bigger rift between you and your peers. More so than feeling a bit different. I was blessed enough to grow up with a profoundly diverse group of friends and we supported each other regardless of our choices in sexuality as we grew into our identity. Choosing to deny a change may as well isolate them further.
To your point about state laws against trans rights there is a LOT to unpack there but I was very clear about my stance of protect and support but do not intervene (in development.)
Puberty blockers are used after talking with a doctor and determining that the benefits of delaying puberty outweigh the potential risks. That's how pretty much everything is prescribed for everyone, including children.
In a lot of these cases, the risk of not delaying puberty can include self-harm, suicide, adult gender dysphoria, less social acceptance as an adult, and being less satisfied with life as an adult.
It's a balance. This isn't a disease - many of the things you listed are psychological and the result of how family and friends treat that person. It's not terribly different from someone starting to realize they may be gay, asexual, or any other of many non-typical alignments. We shouldn't be so quick to push someone on the path for drugs when what they need is time and emotional support.
This isn’t a disease - many of the things you listed are psychological and the result of how family and friends treat that person.
The DSM entry on Gender Dysphoria disagrees.
Blockers are still a change. Inhibiting your sexuality at that age drives a bigger rift between you and your peers. More so than feeling a bit different.
What’s your source for this?
Also, I’m not sure I would describe someone going through this process as “feeling a bit different”.
The great thing about blockers is that you can stop them if they aren’t right for you.
To your point about state laws against trans rights there is a LOT to unpack there but I was very clear about my stance of protect and support but do not intervene (in development.)
Am I reading this correct that you seem to think that your “don’t let anyone take puberty blockers” stance is somehow protecting and supporting? And preventing others that from being able to do so is “not intervening”?
What's your source for this?
Growing up. Life experiences of myself and friends.
Kids are shitty and form cliques. Frequently. If your opinion or (perish the thought) your appearance were to differ - it makes you a far bigger target. Taking something to increase that difference will result in more of that behavior.
On blockers:
I won't disagree that blockers are a gentler approach but they are not a magic bullet and do actually run the risk of lasting effects. Very little long term research has been done outside of animals and frankly I don't think testing on children is the best way to go about it.
Much like steroids or any other drug you can absolutely stop if you don't think it's for you but what of the physical changes that occur in the meantime? Side effects are known and listed on even the mayo clinic website. Ill reiterate: why are we letting children take on these additional risks as if they don't exist?
On your first point, does the evidence show that taking puberty blockers makes you more socially isolated? I have seen no evidence of that at all, and instead there's a mountain of evidence that social transition and puberty blockers lower suicidality in trans kids and increase mental health outcomes.
We've been using puberty blockers, not just for trans kids but for precocious puberty for decades and have more than enough long term evidence of their effectiveness and safety. No drug or procedure is without risk, but why is that only a problem for this issue? Are you also against kids getting chemo? I mean, they certainly don't fully understand the risks of chemo do they?
The question of consent and knowledge of risk is a red herring. Kids can't consent to any medical procedures or sex because we've defined consent that way. But consent from the patient is not always needed for medical procedures, especially when the patient is unable to give consent. Should coma patients still get care that has risks? They can't consent right?
Consent is given by the parents and the medical professionals who have the authority to make those decisions. You can ask the kid, and they usually do, but their consent does not matter. That's how all medical procedures work with kids.
In reality, your statements lay bare a bias, which is why you're getting downvoted. You only seem to care about risks and consent for this specific highly-politicized topic and not medical procedures broadly. Because this is not about a broad critique of consent, it's about trying to excuse your uncomfortablity with this one subject and trying to justify it in any way you can.
You don't have to understand it, and you don't have to agree with it, but you should at least recognize why the majority of major medical institutions make the recommendations they do. And, shockingly, it's not because they somehow forgot it was involving kids, it's because they know a little more about the topic and nuances than you do.
On your first point... [truncated] ...I have seen no evidence of that at all, and instead there's a mountain of evidence that social transition and puberty blockers lower suicidality in trans kids and increase mental health outcomes.
Most of those tests you refer to also involve therapy / councilling in combination with the drugs and very few compare the two. Further there aren't a ton of studies that involve blind tests and placebos. I'll stress again that I am not against this therapy - I am against it so early in the adolescents development process.
We've been using puberty blockers, not just for trans kids but for precocious puberty for decades and have more than enough long term evidence of their effectiveness and safety.
Which is why it's an allowed treatment, yes. But many drugs have multiple usages and in fact multiple doses which affects the end result. Dialing back an aggressive hormonal rush is a bit different than seeking to prevent it outright: which is the goal sought in this case. There are health risks to doing this and as I have asserted elsewhere: urgency is manufactured here. An adolescent needs to feel loved and supported at that stage- not like a mistake that needs immediate care.
The question of consent and knowledge of risk is a red herring. Kids can't consent to any medical procedures or sex because we've defined consent that way. But consent from the patient is not always needed for medical procedures, especially when the patient is unable to give consent. Should coma patients still get care that has risks? They can't consent right?
This is why I made the example I did. They cannot provide consent (as it isn't informed - even if it is explained to them.) This isn't a life or death decision that needs to be made immediately. It involves the rest of that childs hopefully long life. I see no reason to rush into a decision involving drugs which may impact that. And this is, in fact, how most medical professionals should (and do) approach that.
In reality, your statements lay bare a bias, which is why you're getting downvoted. You only seem to care about risks and consent for this specific highly-politicized topic and not medical procedures broadly. Because this is not about a broad critique of consent, it's about trying to excuse your uncomfortablity with this one subject and trying to justify it in any way you can.
Please detail how "too early for consent" somehow means "not at all". That's illogical. I support (as I have said multiple times) consentual therapy... but not that early. Consent should be given by the adolescent when they are legally and mentally capable of making such a choice. My statements and stance are very clear. If you disagree with it that's perfectly fine. You are entitled to your opinion as well... but don't go manufacturing some narrative as to what I believe or who I am.
...but you should at least recognize why the majority of major medical institutions make the recommendations they do.
I covered this above but most recommended therapy/counseling first then move onto drugs. I'm reasonably confident.
While on the topic of what professionals do: My family is littered with medical professionals ranging from people who develop drugs, work with children who need said drugs, are pediatricians and so on. It's a long list. From the development side there are a number of educators as well. K-12, special needs... you name it. I personally travel between hospitals for work and rub elbows with some fantastically bright individuals in many fields. I suspect I may know a thing about what is recommended and how testing is done - but please explain it further to me if you feel I lack perspective.
Perhaps some of your preconceived notions about me may be changing? I am advocating for the child, the adolescent, the individual - who needs the proper care... rather than being part of the wailing masses too busy virtue signaling and brigadeing to actually discuss what is right rather than what feels good.
Don't pull this shit again. You are against the use of puberty blockers because there would be no use for them after the person is done with puberty. You want them to wait until they are 18, when they are done with the vast majority of physical effects to start treatment. And the only reason you've given is "I just don't think they need it yet, they need love not drugs." Present evidence of harm or shut the fuck up. You're fear-mongering over something you don't understand and it has actual harm to other people.
If you think the use is so different that the dangers outweigh the risks then prove it. The institutions that study this don't. The organizations that make policy based on those studies don't. You don't get to just "but it feels different" you have to provide evidence that it is different and harmful in a way the other studies wouldn't have caught.
It's "not at all" for puberty blockers because, again, you want kids to go through puberty before undergoing any gender therapy. If you had studied this at all you'd know why the medical organizations recommend starting before puberty. Puberty is the harm they are looking to alleviate and you can't do that by waiting until after puberty to start treatment.
I'll read your intentions as much as I want because you're a fucking book. It's easy to see exactly why you are here and making the arguments you are. Do you really think this is the first time most of us have seen a "just asking questions" and "this is pedophilia" argument? You don't have to tell me you're a duck, you already walked and talked like one.
I don't give a fuck about your family or friends. Do you have a medical degree? Did you do any studies on this matter? Do you have any relevant training or expertise?
They are changing, but not in the way you think. I've read this book before, I know how it ends. That said, I'm enjoying wasting your time and calling you the bigot you are. I have a feeling you don't hear that enough in your life so I'm happy to provide that for you.
You are advocating for your own feels. If you actually gave a flying fuck about the kids this affects you'd follow the recommendations of the people who actually studied this shit. Or at least present even one piece of evidence.
Devolving the discussion into whatever that bile you spit out seems to suggest you have nothing further add. Skimming over it only confirms you lack a functional capacity to understand examples and exercise some basic reasoning. Continuing, while certainly amusing, would do nothing for the conversation. Find some peace friend.
Boy wants to be a princess, obviously we should let him have sex.
You're making a slippery slope argument
Puberty blockers should be allowed, not making a decision is still a decision
I am making a slippery slope argument. Not making a decision still has effects on the body... that's the point of it. Delayed development is a change in and of itself. Additionally you are taking the m to f perspective. What about the inverse? Lasting effects.
This is and always will be a discussion about sexuality - so abstractly explain why a child can make an informed decision about one aspect of their sexuality but not another?
I'm genuinely curious.
Gender isn't sexuality.
Do you seriously need someone to explain to you that you can make a decision on one thing and not a decision on another.
Abstractly explain how a child can make a decision on what to eat for dinner but not who they want to have sex with.
Alright so I'm happy to expand on this but you first: You have only said gender isn't what I said it is. Go ahead and explain simply what you believe it is and what you perceive it's purpose to be.
Your dinner statement is comparing apples and oranges but sure, I'll bite:
A child hates brussel sprouts. They know this because they have had them and can form an informed decision based on their experiences. The first time at aunt Mary's party they were bad but that was one time. Since then there have been multiple times of eating and disliking this food. They are sure they don't like them. Experience helps form our decisions. I could continue but I trust you understand and can extrapolate from there.
I'm happy to continue this dialogue (on either front) but would like you to actually place your definitions and where you stand on the table first.
Point 1: gender is sexual
Gender is a social construct around behavioural and social traits, sexuality is who one is sexually attracted to, I honestly cannot see how you can correlate the two beyond "this gender is usually heterosexual".
Point 2: children should not make puberty decisions unless they are mature, and to be mature they must go through puberty
If a child is mature enough to go through puberty, then they should be mature enough to make decisions about their puberty.
Why force someone to go through a puberty they hate, and only after they are finished and the changes become irreversible do you allow them to make a decision on how they wish to mature?
I understand this point of view because I used to also hold it, but I'm trying to express to you that forbidding puberty blockers causes the exact same problem, someone uninformed on a subject comes to regret their action (or inaction).
How about you use a fucking dictionary or the google button on your phone and look it up yourself.
Gender == sex == sexuality
Gender isn't about who you sleep with, or what's in your genes/jeans.
If you want to come here to convince people then do the leg-work yourself.
You opened the dialogue with me, friend. You asked me about my opinion and I explained it. I asked you for the same courtesy and you responded with that. Be civil.
I even made a pretty good example of that laughable comparison you asked me to. Rather pleased with it, tbh.
Now: If what you say is true then nobody would be needing reassignment therapy. It doesn't matter who you sleep with or what's in your pants after all.
Now we know that is not true and there is a difference between a man who is gay and a man who is transitioning to a woman. Further it is absolutely about sexuality. We are sexual beings. Our identity is tethered to it. That is the whole point of the transition. Becoming a ______ (who you believe yourself to be.)
Yes: relationships are not only sexual and can be formed for many reasons ... but to say that it isn't sexual nor tied to what is in your pants is simply incorrect or misinformed.
I didn't ask you for anything and you didn't explain anything to me. This was my first comment in this thread. Maybe take some time and see who you are responding to first?
You can shove your civility politics up your ass. Being civil doesn't make it not bigoted and doesn't make you right.
Since you are too lazy to look them up yourself and do the legwork, I'll do it for you:
Sex refers to a set of biological attributes in humans and animals. It is primarily associated with physical and physiological features including chromosomes, gene expression, hormone levels and function, and reproductive/sexual anatomy. Sex is usually categorized as female or male but there is variation in the biological attributes that comprise sex and how those attributes are expressed.
Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, expressions and identities of girls, women, boys, men, and gender diverse people. It influences how people perceive themselves and each other, how they act and interact, and the distribution of power and resources in society. Gender identity is not confined to a binary (girl/woman, boy/man) nor is it static; it exists along a continuum and can change over time. There is considerable diversity in how individuals and groups understand, experience and express gender through the roles they take on, the expectations placed on them, relations with others and the complex ways that gender is institutionalized in society.
Sexuality is a person's identity in relation to the gender or genders to which they are sexually attracted; the fact of being heterosexual, homosexual, etc.
If your definition is as broad as you imply, everything is your sexuality and therefore kids doing anything and having any options at all are sexual in nature. Your definition is useless.
I didn't ask you for anything and you didn't explain anything to me. This was my first comment in this thread. Maybe take some time and see who you are responding to first?
Forgive me for mistaking your hostility on your -first- interaction for being the same blind hostility the prior poster was expressing. That said: find some chill and be civil. Others can manage it- I'm certain you can as well.
You can shove your civility politics up your ass. Being civil doesn't make it not bigoted and doesn't make you right.
See above.
Since you are too lazy to look them up yourself and do the legwork, I'll do it for you:
I'm educated enough to know the definitions and my experiences certainly give me insight to what you are copying and pasting, thank you. As you were dropping into the conversation above maybe provide some insight as to why you think all of these are completely independent of each other. They aren't but please expand.
If your definition is as broad as you imply, everything is your sexuality and therefore kids doing anything and having any options at all are sexual in nature. Your definition is useless.
I mean freud certainly thought so 🤣. Jokes aside- Let's be direct: what do you think developing an identity is? Why do we do it?
No, in essence gender and sexuality are not the same and you seem to be saying they are. If after discussing with a doctor and parents or legal guardian if the best course of action is to prescribe puberty blockers so they can make an informed decision about hormones when 18 I see nothing wrong with that or equivalent to sexualizing children.
Alright so let's follow this line of thought:
If puberty blockers inhibit hormones and hormones are responsible for the development of our brains and identity: how is hitting pause allowing for an informed decision?
I have more to say on this but I want to keep this discussion focused.
If puberty blockers inhibit hormones and hormones are responsible for the development of our brains and identity:
I'm going to need a source that puberty blockers have negative effects on cognitive development to accept that if. If puberty related hormones were necessary to consider someone an adult then people who are missing those hormones or puberty by mutation, disease, etc wouldn't be considered adults which is not the case.
how is hitting pause allowing for an informed decision?
It prevents the acute release of puberty related hormones until they are old enough to be considered an adult under the law and able to make decisions about what they do or don't consent to. The informed decision to prevent permanent changes by taking puberty blockers is made by a medical professional with parental or guardian consent to allow the child to mentally mature and make their own choice about taking hormones. One literary review notes the following positive and negative effects: "Positive outcomes were decreased suicidality in adulthood, improved affect and psychological functioning, and improved social life. Adverse factors associated with use were changes in body composition, slow growth, decreased height velocity, decreased bone turnover, cost of drugs, and lack of insurance coverage. "
I'm going to need a source that puberty blockers have negative effects on cognitive development to accept that if. If puberty related hormones were necessary to consider someone an adult then people who are missing those hormones or puberty by mutation, disease, etc wouldn't be considered adults which is not the case.
This is two different things. It's a fairly well known fact that the maturation of the adolescent mind is during puberty... which is the result of the aforementioned chemicals. I'll further that by saying if you acknowledge someone is chemically different - is stunting that change actually a good thing? The answer isn't known. There are too few peer reviewed studies with sufficient data to provide a credible answer.
As far as considering adulthood - I'd suggest tabling that as it unwinds into some ugly side conversations all of which have validity ... but doesn't belong here. There is a reason we use age as a generic determinant... and that is tied to general brain maturity and experience.
It prevents the acute release of puberty related hormones until ... [truncated]
This is the problem. (I've made this assertion elsewhere in this thread) Those hormones are responsible for more than just sexual development. We can't actually pause our bodies. We are bypassing a part of the development phase and saying "see it started again" when in reality it was just continuing for the remaining period it was supposed to be active for. This has side effects. (which you noted- See the definitions and risks on the mayo clinic site.)
Physical implications aside... we get very chicken and egg here: So do the parents recognize the child is the wrong sex and bring them to the doctor ... or the child says I'm the wrong sex and the aforementioned happens? Obviously the latter. Based on that the child is making the decision based on minimal experience and should be given counselling and time to make that decision as they develop. Your mention of self image and suicide is not uncommon amongst teens period. Providing guidance and understanding is how that is solved... but we as Americans are very good at throwing pills at that problem... and frequently do.
None of the known risks or side effects include cognitive impairment, you are attributing to puberty blockers changes to cognitive development without research demonstrating the causal link between limiting puberty hormones and decreased or slowed cognitive development like the known negative effects. I also wouldn't accept increased cognitive development as a positive effect under puberty blockers without justification either. Until there is sufficient justification for either position we are not justified reaching either conclusion.
I am concerned there is and will be increased public resistance to what the medical consensus supports because of the political scapegoating trans people are under, and wonder if we were talking about transhumanism in general instead focused specifically on transgenderism would the resistance be the same.
The discussions you've mentioned would likely start with a child experiencing distress reported to an adult or their parents noticing their distress and working with a medical doctor to identify the causes and treatment plans to consider. In the cases where the distress is related to a lasting pattern of gender dysphoria or gender nonconformity that is one of the criteria for prescribing puberty blockers.
None of the known risks or side effects include cognitive impairment, you are attributing to puberty blockers changes to cognitive development without research demonstrating the causal link between limiting puberty hormones and decreased or slowed cognitive development like the known negative effects. I also wouldn't accept increased cognitive development as a positive effect under puberty blockers without justification either. Until there is sufficient justification for either position we are not justified reaching either conclusion..
This is a fair point and I will admit I did not have any research in mind when I brought it up... however I believe it's fair to say that of the research that has been done very little focuses on this specific application and it's long term effects.
I am concerned there is and will be increased public resistance to what the medical consensus supports because of the political scapegoating trans people are under, and wonder if we were talking about transhumanism in general instead focused specifically on transgenderism would the resistance be the same.
I loathe politcs involving sexuality period. It's one more way to splinter a community. We absolutely agree here.
The discussions you've mentioned would likely start with a child experiencing distress reported to an adult or their parents noticing their distress and working with a medical doctor to identify the causes and treatment plans to consider. In the cases where the distress is related to a lasting pattern of gender dysphoria or gender nonconformity that is one of the criteria for prescribing puberty blockers.
While this is the case care should be given to how that information is interpreted. Toys, clothing choices, even colors can simply be a very neutral and innocent interest and may (from the child's perspective) simply be something they enjoy. We as adults can overly assign meaning and weight to these choices which may impact the child's perspective. Psychology in general can bandwagon quite a bit in this regard. I will say it has improved quite a bit but we're all human. I digress. To your point I still believe that counseling is and should be the first step and medication should be (if used) used sparingly and ideally after some time has passed. I still firmly dislike the "it's just a pause button" mentality people have. It's far more complex than that- it needs to be respected as a weighty decision.
If they only knew what hormones do to adults, especially amongst athletes, the psychological changes you could face, including severe depression, anxiety, aggression, and sadly acts of violence and self unaliving. I can't support messing with the natural course of hormones within children.
If you're an adult, by all means, it's your choice. You've experienced life long enough and should be able to decide what to do with yourself.
There are better ways to support a child struggling with their identity than affirming that they aren't right and need drugs to fix themselves. It's not meant that way but it's certainly a perception that isn't uncommon.
Are you stupid or a paedophile?
Gender presentation isn't sexual.
Delaying puberty and living as the opposite gender for a few years during childhood, isn't permanent and can be fully reversed if the child changes their mind.
People like you, who keep insisting on correlating prepubescent children's gender presentation with sexual behaviour, are the permantly damaging danger to these children.
If you ever feel like you're going to harm a child because of these abhorrent sexual thoughts you're having, go to a police station or a hospital and beg them to be locked up and medicated.
Or do the honourable thing and save everyone the harm of having to interact with a paedophile. Nobody of value wants people who sexualise and hurt children in their society.
My dude. Gender presentation is sexual. That's the point.
If you are unable to read my statement and it's very clear intent I'm not terribly sure you are capable of further conversation.
Go reread it.
If you're still confused I can highlight both the preceding and following statements I put in place detailing my stance on the subject.
Why are you sexualising prepubescent children? What the fuck is wrong with you?
Alright I'll play:
Why are you forcing prepubescent children to stay that way? What the fuck is wrong with you?
Am I doing it right?
If you cannot comprehend what I wrote then you clearly are either a child or have the mental capacity of one. I have no issue treating you as such.
What makes you think people are “forcing” them to do this?
You’ve now made it absolutely clear that you are just yet another anti-trans bigot who is pretending to want a conversation, but instead is just trying to weasel your abhorrent views into the public discourse.
You have failed, and everyone here sees through your bullshit.
You are what is wrong with discourse, and you should be ashamed of yourself.
Side note to anyone else reading this: it’s SUPER easy to block people like this on lemmy and there really aren’t as many of these chodes as you’d think - I generally only have to block one or so a month and it makes things a whole lot less contentious once you realize you can just block people who are arguing that their hatred is somehow acceptable.
You’ve now made it absolutely clear that you are just yet another anti-trans bigot who is pretending to want a conversation, but instead is just trying to weasel your abhorrent views into the public discourse.
You appear to be assigning a whole lot of assumptions on me there with a ton of baseless claims. Calm the fuck down.
I can comprehend what you wrote perfectly well - I’m just verifying that you didn’t make an error in what you said.
Based on what you've called me, and insinuated what my stance was: I doubt that sincerely.
You have failed, and everyone here sees through your bullshit.
And yet others are having a perfectly reasonable conversation about the topic with me without coming to the utterly insane conclusions you have.
You are what is wrong with discourse, and you should be ashamed of yourself.
I am perfectly happy with my opinions and am willing to discuss them with others. I know it's upsetting that my opinion differs from yours but that is no reason to kick and scream like a petulant child.
Side note to anyone else reading this: it’s SUPER easy to block people like this on lemmy and there really aren’t as many of these chodes as you’d think.
I disagree with this guy so fall in line because I said so.
As I said. Petulant child throwing a tantrum.
If someone is that simple minded that they would actually do that - I'm not sure their choice would register as a negative to me.
I have no idea what your point might be, but I'm fairly sure it's as stupid as everything else you wrote.
Outstanding and well thought out argument.
My point is simple: Gender affirming therapy should not be done PRIOR to the age of consent as children are children (example given.) POST age nothing should be done to stop them nor hinder their decision ... NOR should care be prevented after as people are people.
Simple enough or still too many words? I may have some crayons around somewhere.
You didn't communicate any of that, and your comment shows a severe lack of understanding of what gender affirming care for minors actually consists of.
Keeping things ambiguous makes your statements hollow. Expand and express some actual capacity for conversation or don't bother.
And if the therapy aligns with their physical gender? No treatment for a girl who goes through puberty too young? Nothing for a girl of 17 who is worried because she hadn't started "developing" or gotten her period? Nothing for a boy who isn't going through male puberty, or starts it at 5? Intersex kids who are mis-assigned at birth and panic as adolescents?
Yes the therapies are not without risk, but doing nothing is also not without risk. The only reason doctors will prescribe puberty blockers is if the kids are suffering, otherwise the "care" that is getting outlawed is counseling. I have a trans kid and the doctor prescribed counseling but they can't get it because the clinics aren't allowed to "treat" the transgendered now.
I have a trans kid and the doctor prescribed counseling but they can't get it because the clinics aren't allowed to "treat" the transgendered now.
That's awful, I hope your family is able to figure something out for your kid
And if the therapy aligns with their physical gender? No treatment for a girl who goes through puberty too young? Nothing for a girl of 17 who is worried because she hadn't started "developing" or gotten her period? Nothing for a boy who isn't going through male puberty, or starts it at 5? Intersex kids who are mis-assigned at birth and panic as adolescents?
This is EXACTLY the point I'm making. Should we shove steroids into the boy and estrogen into the girl? Push up and padded bras in lieu of boob jobs? Are we in such a hurry to cram drugs down someone's throat that we can't let them develop and then make a decision on their own when they are capable of? My original statement is just that. We can't say one is right when the other isn't. Provide emotional support and education? Absolutely. Provide drugs and potentially life changing side effects on "proven" yet not thoroughly tested treatments? No. It's my opinion, sure, but my reasoning is sound.
Yes the therapies are not without risk, but doing nothing is also not without risk. The only reason doctors will prescribe puberty blockers is if the kids are suffering, otherwise the "care" that is getting outlawed is counseling. I have a trans kid and the doctor prescribed counseling but they can't get it because the clinics aren't allowed to "treat" the transgendered now.
This is a complex topic. Absolutely counseling should be available and it's positively evil that someone would block that. I don't disagree. Many doctors are simply a walking prescription book and will provide what is asked for... so I will typically discount when someone uses doctor prescription as an argument. Kudos to that doctor, though- I respect that.
A great deal of that suffering is from lack in of emotional support. I know it's common to solve this with drugs but let's ease off the gas a bit.
Should we shove steroids into the boy and estrogen into the girl
You're demonstrating that you don't know what medical interventions are used for minors. That's hormone replacement therapy, whereas puberty blockers are a different set of medicines that inhibit estrogens and androgens.
I'm making an example. Don't be pedantic.
You're making bad faith arguments and it is hard to take you seriously because I don't know which of your "examples" are supposed to be "true and useful".
Making a generic statement to further a conversation is commonplace. It was not to be taken literally. If you are planning on analyzing my figures of speech for fallacies, by all means, be my guest: but it only reinforces my observation from earlier.
This is EXACTLY the point I'm making. Should we shove steroids into the boy and estrogen into the girl? Push up and padded bras in lieu of boob jobs? Are we in such a hurry to cram drugs down someone's throat that we can't let them develop and then make a decision on their own when they are capable of? My original statement is just that.
Elsewhere in this thread, you assert that hormones produced during puberty are essential to the cognitive development of these children you seem to care so much about. But now we should make those same children wait nearly a decade – delaying this vital development – until they're legally adults? Because their developing brains are too underdeveloped to make the decision to seek medical treatment that would allow their brains to develop, as you claim? That's quite the catch 22.
Out of curiosity, what medical treatments do you consider allowable for minors? Can a student struggling to focus in school take medication for executive function disorders? Bipolar disorder is commonly diagnosed in adolescence, do those individuals have a legal right to seek treatment before their 18th birthdays? Or something that can potentially be treated with over-the-counter medication, like insomnia, or even seasonal allergies? Do we – as you say – cram drugs down these children's throats, or wait until they're 18 so we can make sure that they really do want treatment to improve their lives?
After all, maybe those kids are just lazy, want attention, or like staying up late, we better wait until they're legally adults to make sure they don't just grow out of it.
It's a distasteful and disingenuous tone but I'll break it down:
Elsewhere in this thread, you assert that hormones produced during puberty are essential to the cognitive development of these children you seem to care so much about.
You are combining two statements I made and inferring something incorrectly from it.
First in reference to the hormones and puberty: it's known that these hormones don't exclusively develop our sexual attributes. They do, certainly, but that's not all they do. Many of the drawbacks of taking inhibitors are result of inhibiting this (other) development in our bodies. I believe I referenced the mayo clinics site as an example.
Cognitive development is important. Absolutely. I firmly believe that prior to the age of consent we shouldn't be in a hurry to medicate away this "problem." The adolescent should be supported and given access to counseling so they, given sufficient time and information, can make an informed decision.
But now we should make those same children wait nearly a decade – delaying this vital development – until they're legally adults?
That is roughly what I'm implying- but your math is off unless we are starting this discussion around the age of 6 to 8. Let's dial down the dramatics here.
I'm omitting your catch 22 as it is circular nonsense.
Out of curiosity, what medical treatments do you consider allowable for minors? ... [truncated] ...
This is more or less all the same. In short most of the things you have listed can be tested for and quantified. And yes while we can use drugs for treatment - very frequently we employ counseling and other less drastic methods before resorting to drugs. A state of being or sense of self is difficult to test for or quantity. There has been some headway on it but it's in it's infancy... so yes my stance on exercising a more methodical and cautious approach remains a reasonable decision.
Nothing disingenuous here, just asking questions so I can better understand your position. It's clear that you're passionate about the welfare of children.
I was operating under the assumption that all your statements in this thread were part of a larger argument for your position. I'll walk through my thought process, hopefully you can correct my inference.
Those hormones are responsible for more than just sexual development. We can't actually pause our bodies. We are bypassing a part of the development phase and saying "see it started again" when in reality it was just continuing for the remaining period it was supposed to be active for.
Here you state that hormones are essential for more than just sexual development, no disagreement there. The statement was made in the context of a discussion about brain development, correct?
This is EXACTLY the point I'm making. Should we shove steroids into the boy and estrogen into the girl? Push up and padded bras in lieu of boob jobs? Are we in such a hurry to cram drugs down someone's throat that we can't let them develop and then make a decision on their own when they are capable of?
Here you imply that individuals whose bodies do not produce the hormones associated with the sex they were assigned at birth should not be given treatment to rectify that.
So I see two claims here: first, that hormones during puberty are required for brain development, and second, that individuals should wait until they are legally adults to receive any kind of hormone-related medical treatment.
A catch-22 is by definition circular nonsense, a paradox that's only way out leads you right back into it.
So say an individual doesn't start puberty for whatever reason (which starts on average between ages 8 and 14, according to the NIH). This means, according to your assertion, that their brain will lack the necessary chemicals to mature in the average timescale. Meaning, that at 18 – the age of consent for most of the US and when you assert that an individual is mature enough to make these decisions – their brain will not be mature enough to make that decision. How can they ever get the treatment they need to enable that development if their brain never develops to the point you would be comfortable with them making that decision? Wouldn't they still be an immature teenager trapped in an adult body, not ready to understand the consequences of their actions? Who gets to make the medical decision for them, if anyone, or are they trapped in some kind of limbo, unable to consent to anything for their entire lives?
And yes while we can use drugs for treatment - very frequently we employ counseling and other less drastic methods before resorting to drugs.
Can you help me find some more information on this? To my knowledge, therapy and counseling are essential parts of treatment for gender dysphoria, but it sounds like there must be doctors recklessly prescribing hormone therapy and I'd love to know more about that so I'm not caught off guard again.
If a kid has a heart condition and they have to have a risky surgery, the doctors ask the parents. Because the child is not old enough to understand the implications of these things.
I see gender dysphoria as a similar thing. The suicide rate is very high for these individuals so some form of treatment is essential if you care about your child. It's the same as if they had a heart issue with like a 40% risk of dying. It's life or death.
The transitioning process works best if it happens before puberty. When a child goes through puberty, the sexual hormones start pumping and that permanently changes many parts of the body. Literally the shape and size of bones will change.
If you catch gender dysphoria before puberty, the end result of the transition will be much more effective than doing it at 18 or 20. By that point there's no going back from puberty.
So essentially - the child isn't making a decision. The parents are making an informed medical decision based on a diagnosis by a medical professional.
I really don't see this as any different than any other medical issue. The difference is this is unusual and many people think emotionally.
That's what I can't fathom. This is such a big boost for children's mental health. It heavily reduces their depression and suicide risk. They're happier.
Maybe this is controversial, but if a parent isn't willing to do that for their kid, I believe it's neglect and endangerment. They aren't fit to be a parent, and the state should intervene. We don't let parents with batshit religious beliefs deny their children lifesaving treatment. We shouldn't let parents deny their children treatment that would vastly improve their mental health and reduce their suicide risk.
I would want more research before mandating it as if it were lifesaving operations. But yeah, I agree in a general sense.
I think a lot of people that disagree would change their minds if they had a child with gender dysphoria. A lot of conservatives believe the parents are manipulating the child or seeing things that aren't there.
But I've seen it before. I met a little boy maybe 8 or 9 years old in a very religious conservative household some years back. It was the neighbor of a family friend. Nobody manipulated him into saying stuff like "I'm a girl in a boy's body". Or trying to sneak makeup or dresses. They tried to pray it out of him. But it was persistent, year after year he would day these things.
I think the same thing with a lot of anti-gay people having a gay son or whatever. Once you meet someone like that it sort of becomes real and makes you realize "oh wow maybe I'm wrong"
I changed my mind after meeting that family and seeing the boy. I used to think differently on this.
It takes a strong and wise person to admit they were wrong and change their mind for the better. I applaud you for that. Given how prevalent calling things gay was when I was a teenager, I think a lot of people changed their minds for the better when they realized their friends and family were gay. And then some realized they were also gay, funny enough.
I agree that we need more time before we institute any sort of policy or mandating, but I do think we should eventually do that.
It's interesting, I think a lot of conservative beliefs come down to the idea that children cannot be autonomous people with their own beliefs. They don't believe that a child can have an independent thought, and that whatever they say is indoctrination from parents or school. It says a lot about their worldview.
If someone fully believes in the independence of children to form their own thoughts and beliefs and opinions, I don't see how they could support any sort of anti LGBT ban.
Man I have to disagree on the heart example. One means death if it's not 'treated' and the other is a life choice.
Of course pre-hormones is a great time to start but for external / appearance reasons. Do we not force body types on kids enough? It's shallow thinking and reinforces the worst parts of society.
I do understand the urge to just dive into it but it's not as clean cut as just "push pause." There are known risks, unknown long term effects, and a lack of sufficient testing on how it affects brain development. We need to stop rushing into shit just because it's easy or highlights how virtuous we are.
Suicide rates for trans is almost 50%
I'm assuming a couple of things here in my logic
A) transitioning is an effective treatment for gender dysphoria and significantly lowers the suicide rate for these people
B) there is a medically accurate way to diagnosis gender dysphoria
So you say "one is death if not treated but the other is a life choice"
The trans thing is life or death too. If you have a child and they are displaying these types of behaviors (wanting to play with dolls as a boy, saying they are a girl, trying to wear dresses, etc) then you have a kid that is very very likely to kill themselves and have other mental health problems
Getting medical treatment ASAP is the logical thing to do
I know it's still relatively new and can potentially be harmful to the child if not diagnosed properly. I also understand there are some crazy parents out there who project their BS onto their kids.
But I think as a parent I would want the best for my kid so I would do whatever it takes to make sure they have the best quality of life and just chance at life in general.
If they are going to transition, they will pass much better if they do it pre-puberty. By the time they're in high school they would probably look imperceptibly like the opposite sex.
I would only want it done after rigorous tests by medical professional that absolutely rules out weirdo parents
You’re getting downvoted because you’re repeating false rhetoric.
No, pretty much nobody thinks a child should be having a sexual relationship with whomever they want. However, teens do have those relationships, and most of us acknowledge it happens and are generally ok with it provided there aren’t clear signs of abuse.
Likewise, no one thinks a child should medically transition. However, many of us think teens should be able to medically transition. In fact, decisions about transitioning are often happening several years later than decisions about sex.
Your hypothetical example was to give people a mental image of 6 and 7 year olds when you know damn well the conversation is about 16 and 17 year olds. And if you genuinely weren’t aware, you are now, so it’s time to rethink your position.
If you want to talk about these decisions in the age group where they’re actually happening, then sure, let’s talk. But it’s not going to be conversational if you’re not willing to start from a position of intellectual honesty.
I'm getting downvoted because I made a strongly worded statement that makes a parallel that makes people uncomfortable. It's easy to push a button and feel like you've somehow confirmed your social values. It doesn't bother me. If they don't speak up they had nothing to contribute.
No, pretty much nobody thinks a child should be having a sexual relationship with whomever they want. However, teens do have those relationships, and most of us acknowledge it happens and are generally ok with it provided there aren’t clear signs of abuse.
However we aren't okay with early teens having those relationships outside of controlled environments (age etc.). You can decide as long as it's within our parameters. And while this is happening - we still legally eviscerate teens that have sex with each other. I digress.
Likewise, no one thinks a child should medically transition. [truncated] Your hypothetical example was to give people a mental image of 6 and 7 year olds when you know damn well the conversation is about 16 and 17 year olds. And if you genuinely weren’t aware, you are now, so it’s time to rethink your position.
I'm all for it at 16 or 17. This is being done on/to 12-15 year old highschoolers. This is the target age range I was looking at as well. I selected an ambiguous age because it drove the point home. I know damn well what I wrote and why I wrote it. Everyone loves to assign additional meaning to someones actions- not dissimilar from forcing kids into a risky decision early on in their development.
If you want to talk about these decisions in the age group where they’re actually happening, then sure, let’s talk. But it’s not going to be conversational if you’re not willing to start from a position of intellectual honesty.
I've been nothing but honest. I come from a family of educators and medical professionals. My opinions are founded based on my experiences, my friends experiences, and my families experiences. But I guess intellectual honesty isn't that. Please direct me which line I need to intellectualy fall into?
Where are you getting that 12 year olds are medically transitioning? Standard of care is 16+ and only recently has WPATH given the opinion that down to 14 may be appropriate in some cases.
Also, no one is “forcing” these kids into any sort of decision. These decisions are being made between the patient, parents, and doctor after thorough evaluation and discussion take place.
16+ is the age of consent depending on where you live. My stance is focused on prior to that age. I have indicated as much in other responses. People are saying it should be started to counteract puberty which for many starts as early as 12. Within that scope in mind... I imagine my stance is a bit more logical.
There was a time when it was almost trendy to have a child who was gay. It was a disgusting period and it highlighted how people would project their ideals and ideas onto their kids. I had a friend I cared for deeply struggle with some fallout related to that. There is a reason I stress informed consent opposed to what I'd describe as guided consent: It's their decision and they should make it when they have been given sufficient time and counseling to be certain. This isn't a binary discussion - there's a lot of nuance.
“People are saying” is not the medical standard of care, and medical transition does not counteract puberty. Regardless of what “people are saying,” doctors are not routinely offering medical transition to 12 year olds.
If you want to have the conversation, as you put it, it helps to get the basic facts straight.
let's not be pedantic to try to weasel out a point. Let me clarify: people [in this thread] have stated it is a method to prevent the results of puberty... which unless I am mistaken can start quite early (12 and earlier.) My statements echoed how ridiculous that is... so thank you for the concern but my facts were straight.
Forgive me if I’m misremembering as your original post appears to have been deleted, but I distinctly recall you mentioning an “irreversible” decision to medically transition. Though medical transition is actually partially reversible, I felt it was pretty clear we were both talking about medical transition (as opposed to surgical transition, which is irreversible.)
Puberty suppressing medications have been used for a wide range of medical conditions for the last 40 years. They are not the same as medical transition, and they are reversible. So it appears you may be conflating two different therapies that are typically taken years apart.
It really is a shame a lot of that got deleted as we all were referencing off it. The reason given didn't fit as the discussions, while heated, were mostly civil.
I forget my exact choice of words (which is frustrating) but in essence I said that a pause doesn't exist. It is a chemical process being blocked. It doesn't run it back for the missed time after the blockers go away- it simply runs its remaining time out. I recall acknowledging that while yes blockers have been in use for some time the dosage and effect desired were different: think reducing a flow rather than outright turning it off. The result and long term effects are different and there are far fewer studies on the latter. I made an off the cuff comment about not wanting to use children as test subjects I believe.
All of that more or less to explain my position that outright blocking so early can have lasting effects that may threaten the health of the person later in life. This is why I think the use of pause and the downplaying of potential side effects is in poor taste or disingenuous.
I actually don’t think I saw any of your posts talking specifically about puberty blockers, so thank you for summarizing.
I am not sure what you mean by “missed time” and “runs its remaining time out.” GNRH agonists work by downregulating the pituitary gland, which results in decreased hormone secretion. When those hormones stop, so does puberty. When those hormones resume, puberty resumes, typically 6-18 months after stopping the med. There is no magical set of checkboxes or hidden time schedule the body must follow: the entire process is hormone-mediated. “Arrest” is the correct medical term to describe this process, though “pause” is a good non-medical substitute.
You are incorrect about the dosing: it is comparable to that for use in other conditions. For example, for leuprolide (one of the most common meds used,) the starting dose is 3.25 mg per month or 11.25 mg every 3 months with a max of 22.5 mg every 3 months. This is comparable to the dosing for adolescent endometriosis and fibroids, and lower than the dosing for central precocious puberty (7.5-15 mg monthly or 11.5-30 mg every 3 months.)
Leuprolide has been used in children as young as 1 year old and can be continued until 11 or 12 for central precocious puberty. Endometriosis and fibroids are teen indications, so it has been used for children of all ages (as well as adults of all ages.) The result and intended effect are the same as central precocious puberty or for kids with growth hormone deficiency: to arrest puberty temporarily, at which point it can be safely resumed. The big difference is that the blocking for precocious puberty happens much earlier and for much longer, while the blocking for growth hormone deficiency happens at the same time (start of puberty.)
It’s important to note that people who take a treatment are not “test subjects.” Test subjects are those enrolled in clinical trials. They are given informed consent related to the trial, enrolled with strict parameters, and followed-up on in a systematic way. “Leuprolide Acetate for Puberty Suppression in Transgender and Gender Diverse Youth: A Comparison of Subcutaneous Eligard Versus Intramuscular Lupron” (2022) is an example of a study that used test subjects. You going to the doctor and getting a medication is not.
I’m willing to wager that you were perfectly fine letting endocrinologists use their medical expertise to judge whether giving medications like leuprolide to toddlers and young children is medically necessary, and that your objection to it and similar meds magically appeared when those same doctors judged it medically necessary to give these same medications to transgender early teens. If this is indeed the case, it raises the question of whether you’re actually concerned about these medications, or whether you’re actually using it as an excuse to block access to safe and effective medical treatments for trans teens.
In almost all cases the point is to keep things reversible. The problem is puberty. Once the hormone cascades hit, it's far harder to transition. At the same time, fully transitioning is not something many children are equipped to cope with.
Luckily there is a 3rd option. Puberty can be delayed without permanent issues. This gives the patient and doctors time to figure out what to do long term. If they were confused, they stop the drugs, and puberty happens normally. If they truly want to transition, they are in a far better position to change than if they experienced puberty as the "wrong" gender.
By delaying the changes, it allows time for them to process what they want. It also lets them experience living as the other gender, in a reversible manner.
This is the first half that everyone wants to champion but reality is that drugs of any kind - treatments of any kind - have side effects and lasting effects.
Hitting pause as everyone so eloquently puts it does actually have effects outside of underdeveloped sexual organs. It's not a magic bullet.
I'm not against someone being who they want to be but do so after the age of consent when your development is slowing down. It's safer.
As far as what children are equipped to deal with: That age range is for discovering their identity. Hitting pause is a disservice to that cause. Yes the physical changes are a real thing - but those changes aren't all sexual either and are affected by the drugs we're shoving onto these kids.
If anything the current culture is forcing them to make a decision on "take these drugs now or you won't be perfect." Fuck that. Pushing a decision on them like that, regardless of our intent, is no better than denying who they are (or who they may become) outright.
I may not advocate for changing children when they are developing but once they have more time to be certain of who they want to become - I'm all for it.
Nobody thinks there's a magic bullet, but you seem to imply that continuing with the wrong puberty will not leave lasting effects. Delaying is the least bad of three imperfect options. You're complaining about "putting a decision on the child", while taking that decision away from them, the parents, and doctor.
Simply waiting "until they have more time to be certain" is not a neutral decision; it's deciding cis and worsening the consequences if they're not. They're consenting to a medical procedure - not to sex - so the age of consent [for sex] doesn't apply; informed consent medical ethics do.
Hope this helps!
I understand your view however I disagree fundamentally on a few aspects of it.. please bear with this line of questioning:
Why is it imperative they chose so early? (I know the answer but play along... I promise this has a point)
If the reason you stated is physical ... why are we discounting the physical risks associated with the side effects? Do those outweigh the safety and healthy life of that person later in life? Are we overly applying weight to physical appearance over safety? It's common in a lot of other scenarios...
Recall that my assertions are pointed at effectively highschool age and below: not all of a body's development (sexual and otherwise) occurs at this phase. Post highschool the young adult is now able to make decisions (largely) for themselves. Around that time they have a much better sense of identity as well. Is it absolutely critical to force that decision prior to that considering that?
Why not counseling and emotional support during their early development and let them make the decision when they are more legally capable after that time?
That got longer than I wanted but I'm curious what your thoughts are.
Risks of medical intervention always should be weighed against risks of nonintervention. If there is a significant probability a child is trans, delaying puberty may be the least intrusive option. There is a chance of negative effects, like with all medical interventions, but if they are most likely trans forcing them to undergo puberty is much more likely to have long term negative effects (including suicidality). Why is this specific medical decision equivalent to kids having sex? Do you view other procedures, like deciding to have braces, the same way? What about much riskier treatments with a muddled short/long term prognosis, like some heart surgeries?
Risks of medical intervention always should be weighed against risks of nonintervention.
Agreed. I have expressed as much when discussing adverse effects.
If there is a significant probability a child is trans, delaying puberty may be the least intrusive option. There is a chance of negative effects, like with all medical interventions, but if they are most likely trans forcing them to undergo puberty is much more likely to have long term negative effects (including suicidality).
The first statement while correct is ignoring that if they are in fact trans there is a high likelihood of hormone therapy and/or surgery regardless. The statement about the psychological aspects is oft tied to discussions like these: They rarely factor in adolescents in general are an increased risk during this time. Funnily enough councilling and familial support are typically the strongest way to combat most cases which stem from isolation and fear/confusion.
Why is this specific medical decision equivalent to kids having sex? Do you view other procedures, like deciding to have braces, the same way? What about much riskier treatments with a muddled short/long term prognosis, like some heart surgeries?
edit: I misread the above and combined it with another discussion from a prior thread. sorry!
Ultimately because the choice can effect you later in life. This is one of the reasons we apply the gravity to it that we do. There are other parallels. In the end we acknowledge that a more developed mind can weigh those pros and cons and make a (more?) informed decision. I absolutely pushed this perspective to 11 to get a response but I firmly believe it is an acceptable equivalent in terms of weight of decision.
Hmm... Mostly because sexuality is tied to who we are. Does it determine every aspect of our existence? I'm not freud 😂. No. But it is undeniably a facet in our complex understanding of self.Braces are an interesting choice; they have health benefits as well as effect our outward appearance. Surgeries (as I think I've expressed before) don't quite fall into this category but... If you have a low risk heart condition (relatively speaking) you could dive right in and get surgery (risks) or perhaps wait and do more research on it and become better informed. If anything it would support what I am advocating. (Yes I'm aware you can flip the argument the other way.) I think it's worth acknowledging that in that scenario that the latter decision is typically the recommended one.
I'm sorry, which of these questions are literal and which are rhetorical? If they are trans, then deciding before a cis puberty is less harmful.
Mostly literal. The first couple are low ball rhetorical - the reasoning is typically appearance based. Voices can change too. I understand the urge to nip that in the bud however we are talking about someone who is far too young to have any certainty on the matter. Suffice to say I know very well about this and have multiple examples but cannot expand on this further. I will say that while it is not often talked about (often because of the backlash) not all adolescents who believe they are the wrong gender end up deciding they aren't. This too is the cause for a lot of tragic stories. With that in mind is my suggestion/assertions off base? Time is a concern, and is a relevant argument... but why risk early development over a few years against a lifetime where good health is an asset?
There's a chance of a tragic story no matter what - if the kid goes through puberty with the wrong hormones, it's going to negatively impact their health forever. These choices need to be weighed on an individual basis with doctor and parental involvement, not one choice for everyone until an arbitrary legal age.
is my suggestion/assertions off base?
Your initial comment is removed, what was that you compared it to again?
As a direct answer to your statement (your question warranted a separate thread):
I agree on case by case. Some will be clear cut but kids are malleable and uncertain. They have very little worldly experience to draw on and need to be protected... universally. My reaction to posts and positions such as this one is visceral. Too many people will bandwagon the ideal and 'virtue' of it and in doing so propose overly simplified ideas that aren't a real (or complete) solution. It's social media - I expect the response I got to a degree but it is pleasant when it yields a good discussion. It may benefit someone later to be able to observe those views and see that it is possible to discuss differences in opinions without a firefight.
Yeah, I saw that. Apparently rule 3... despite most of the interactions being civil. I petitioned its return as I think it adds context and is worth the discussion:
I made a spoiler text analog to a statement that we should allow underaged (implied age which we have been discussing) adolescents to have complete sexual freedom. Some people clearly stopped reading and took that to some impressive extremes. I had prefaced and followed the statement with an indication that we wouldn't allow such a thing (and rightly so.) The statement's intent was to illustrate that we cannot expect someone so young to make informed decisions about certain things.
I believe in a follow-up statement I expanded saying it was equally incorrect for someone else to make that decision for the child/adolescent. It's too important.
I selected it for its fairly universal acceptance and (as I've mentioned) some similar gravity in allowing them to make those decisions so early.
We have been using puberty blockers for a long time. They were around when I was prepubescent. They're established medicine, and doctors deem whatever the side effects are to be worth helping the children's mental and physical health.
All medicine is like this. Very little medication has no side effects at all. Yet we give children medicine all the time. Because it does more good than harm.
Who decides if it does more good than harm? Medical professionals. Not laymen on the Internet.
Hitting pause as everyone so eloquently puts it does actually have effects outside of underdeveloped sexual organs.
Can you explain what you mean by this?
You're totally right! Kids shouldn't be able to acquire whatever drugs they want independently of parents and doctors. Luckily that's not on discussion anywhere