Double negative confused me for a second and I was sad. Opposes the ban! Want gender affirming care available. Excellent.
Oh I missed that entirely. Sloppy writing, it should be arranged “opposes bans on gender affirming care”.
Gotta get them clicks tho. Maybe we’re at the beginning of a transition from, “shocking and attention-grabbing headlines,” to, “attention-grabbing but also poorly written in a way that it’ll agitate an even wider wash of readers”
Same! “Supports care” would have been an easier concept, though a little different from “opposes ban” I guess…
Lol same had to read it 2x 😂
I find it quite common (and confusing) for certain news types like policy, eg “party A reverses the disapproval to oppose the once-unacceptable ban”
Then morally don’t do it yourself and leave everyone else to make their own decisions.
Why do so many people care about what other people do to their own bodies?
They oppose bans on care. But a slight majority thinks it’s wrong to transition.
I think that’s what you’re looking for. They don’t want to do it, but don’t want to ban anyone who’s doing it.
The title could’ve been more clear, thanks for providing that clarification
Yeah I’m glad everyone else was confused, too. I felt like the dumb one for thinking it was the opposite.
“But a slight majority thinks it’s wrong to transition.”
Looks like someone forgot what freedom was about and needs to be educated on it.
I think the people surveyed agree with you here. They’re saying that they’re opposed to the surgery, but they don’t want to ban the surgeries even though they oppose them.
Minors aren’t getting any surgeries.
Gender affirming care for trans kids involves seeing psychiatrists, social transitioning, and, if they’re lucky, puberty blockers till they’re old enough to decide whether they want to medically and surgically transition.
Minors are gettin surgery if they’re intersex at birth, in the US especially they get surgically assigned a binary sex even though it is no longer recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics and actively opposed by the UN.
And that’s a completely different issue that’s totally separate from the anti trans laws being pushed by the right wing today.
You didn’t get their point. The only children who are getting gender reassignment surgery are the ones who right wing doctors are trying to assign a gender to, despite medical consensus that it’s unnecessary, he’s calling the right wing misinformed and hypocritical
I am aware. I wasn’t in the survey
They need to be informed that surgery alleviates gender dysphoria and saves tens of thousands in the long run from poor mental health to lessen productivity.
The healthcare system should cover every gender affirming care surgery available.
Don’t accept their definition shifting. They wrap surgery into “gender affirming care” then say young children get GAC to make people think they’re regularly performing surgery on 12 year olds. Hormone blockers are GAC too.
I know. I wasn’t in the survey
There are many misconceptions here. For instance, a sizeable fraction of the public believes that minors receive a sex-change surgery (they don’t) as opposed to just medication and therapy. I think most people are mostly worried that it is easy to transition and kids might do it without considering the consequences. These myths could be easily dispelled if they actually talk to transgenders.
Good point but please say transgender people instead as transgender is an adjective.
And we also should allow alcohol and drugs for minors. And weddings of course.
Medical and psychological consensus says we shouldn’t allow children to marry or drink alcohol or do drugs. Where’s the medical consensus that we shouldn’t allow GRT?
Kind of a weak argument, we currently ignore the first part almost entirely from a legal perspective, I don’t remember the last time a child or parent got in trouble for a kid sneaking booze under age. They get in trouble for the things they do while drunk, but not the drinking itself. The parents get talked to, but unless they bought them the alcohol there’s no repercussions.
As for the the weddings, they are still legal with no effective minimum age in 4 US states (and there are multiple marriages a year as young as 12) and about half the states only restrict it to age 16+
False equivalent
That’s so nice! I’m so happy for US folks! Here in the UK only 12% support Gender-affirming care for trans minors, most want it banned, most actually don’t support it for adults either 😢
https://yougov.co.uk/society/articles/43194-where-does-british-public-stand-transgender-rights-1 (you need to see the full results to see that)
It’s really fucked up that so many people think it’s their place to be involved in other people’s personal medical decisions, especially when the medical guidelines are currently quite conservative, and based on medical consensus.
A lot of people are social authoritarians, but very few will admit it.
It’s not called TERF Island for nothing!
Gosh, it’s almost as though most people aren’t hateful bigots. Hateful bigots should take note, but they won’t. In fact, if they do it’ll only be to point out how they’re being persecuted. I dislike hateful bigots.
Ok, then don’t get your kid gender affirming care. Why is it so fucking hard for people to mind their own business?
This is a good headline. Most people oppose the bans.
It looks like you misread the headline.
I don’t know that that’s a great solution though. I also worry that just because a majority oppose bans, that doesn’t mean they’d all be in favor of it for their child
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
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.
Removed by mod
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.
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
Removed by mod
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.
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.
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.
Removed by mod
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.
I have no idea what your point might be, but I’m fairly sure it’s as stupid as everything else you wrote.
Removed by mod
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”.
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.
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?
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
