RugbyRebels

morepork wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

morepork wrote:So...no emergency then. Who is experimenting with child development? Assuming you are alluding to some unregulated hormone bombardment on a whim or something? I'm not convinced this social engineering you believe to be taking place is in fact taking place.

e.g.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cam ... e-55144148

Or are you denying that such 'treatments' are happening? Or do you claim they're not experimental?

This sort of thing is the sort of thing I'm talking about, although not just overt stuff like this, but less visible stuff like impacts from highly processed food, plastics in food packaging etc. There are a lot of environmental stimuli potentially impacting children's development that we need to be more aware of. Again, my concern is not limited to gender identity and sexual orientation, but is rather more encompassing and holistic. I don't see why we should exclude these issues when it comes to oversight and precautionary principle, just in order to avoid upsetting a particular minority.

And just to add a little bit of argumentum ad auctoritate... I studied endocrinology in university as part of my bachelors, so it's not like I'm coming at this topic without any background. I wrote papers about hormonal pharmaceutical treatments - not on this exact topic because it was a long time ago, before this became in vogue, but on stuff like assessments of the potential use of drugs like tamoxifen for osteopenic menopausal women. It's been a while, so I can't claim to be an expert now, but I have base knowledge that helps me to understand at least how complex the whole endocrine system is, and I don't think we should be so overconfident with how we mess around with it (intentionally or unintentionally).

"The judges said their decision was only on the informed consent of a child or a young person, not whether puberty blockers were appropriate themselves.

The ruling said: "The court is not deciding on the benefits or disbenefits of treating children with GD (gender dysphoria) with PBs, whether in the long or short term."

Why do I feel like I've been tricked into attending an undergrad physiology lecture given by the church of scientology?

I'm not talking about this specific judgement, it was the first article I found when I googled to find an example of the sort of treatments that are being undertaken. Why do you seek to mischaracterize me? It seems you're more interested in winning an argument than trying to come to a common truth. Always did prefer dialectic to debate, pity no one else does.

You said you doubt such treatments are happening - I showed you proof they are.

No no no Tom Cruise, I said I was skeptical that experimenting with child development was going on, your response to which was a link to that article. I'm not really interested in some sort of emotional appeal argument when there is actual data out there. Perhaps you should simply state your motivation for further contributions to the Fred? It looks to me like you don't like the idea of young people transitioning, but I'm prepared to be wrong.

morepork wrote:No no no Tom Cruise, I said I was skeptical that experimenting with child development was going on, your response to which was a link to that article. I'm not really interested in some sort of emotional appeal argument when there is actual data out there. Perhaps you should simply state your motivation for further contributions to the Fred? It looks to me like you don't like the idea of young people transitioning, but I'm prepared to be wrong.

I have been very clear. I am concerned that society is intentionally and unintentionally impacting children's development, due to a combination of hubris, ideology, carelessness, lack of knowledge, and profit motive.

I believe in prevention being better than cure. But as always there's always so much more money in curing than there is in preventing. My argument is that we should seek to prevent these issues by applying the precautionary principle a bit more and via funding sufficient research to attain understanding of the causes, rather than abdicating responsibility to these young children and allowing society's myriad of environmental stimuli to interfere with their development resulting in a demand for big pharma to make a tidy profit out of 'curing' them, and politicians who like identity politics to gain from the fragmentation of identity within society, all the while shutting down any attempt of people who question this reckless and radical reaction.

That doesn't mean I'm against people transitioning - it means that I am aghast that we are so keen to rush in to 'cure' (sometimes without proper consent and with dodgy ethical practices) without funding enough research to understand exactly why we need to.

morepork wrote:No no no Tom Cruise, I said I was skeptical that experimenting with child development was going on, your response to which was a link to that article. I'm not really interested in some sort of emotional appeal argument when there is actual data out there. Perhaps you should simply state your motivation for further contributions to the Fred? It looks to me like you don't like the idea of young people transitioning, but I'm prepared to be wrong.

I’ll be honest, I don’t like the idea of teenagers transitioning. Puberty causes all kinds of confusion around sexuality as it is, it’s bound to be confusing as hell if you’re struggling with your gender, too.

But that doesn’t mean I conflate it with saying being gay is not normal, or could cause problems for humanity…

I’d say persecution of homosexuals has caused far more problems for humanity than the homosexuals themselves have caused.

There was even a study that showed children whose parents were same sex performed better at school and had happier lives. Sure, there are problems with that study and the truth is probably more like “gay parents are just as good at raising children as straight people”, but the point is…

Conflating 2 disparate issues around sexuality and gender where one is clear cut and one is confusing is ridiculous. It’s exactly the same argument people use against trans when they start talking about trans sportspeople. Who ducking cares! That’s like 0.01% of the population, it has no bearing on the other 99.99%. So why make them suffer by saying there’s no problem with homophobia?

I can't see many disagreeing that this stuff could do with better funding. Waiting until better funding and research comes along doesn't really seem like a valid option for a lot of people who are actually suffering right now though, particularly when there seem to be effective options available for many of them.

Surely cautionary/radical is only ever relative to what is currently in place. If what's currently in place serves you in no way at all then what do you do? Just hope the next generation might have it a little easier?

Stom wrote:

morepork wrote:No no no Tom Cruise, I said I was skeptical that experimenting with child development was going on, your response to which was a link to that article. I'm not really interested in some sort of emotional appeal argument when there is actual data out there. Perhaps you should simply state your motivation for further contributions to the Fred? It looks to me like you don't like the idea of young people transitioning, but I'm prepared to be wrong.

I’ll be honest, I don’t like the idea of teenagers transitioning. Puberty causes all kinds of confusion around sexuality as it is, it’s bound to be confusing as hell if you’re struggling with your gender, too.

But that doesn’t mean I conflate it with saying being gay is not normal, or could cause problems for humanity…

I’d say persecution of homosexuals has caused far more problems for humanity than the homosexuals themselves have caused.

There was even a study that showed children whose parents were same sex performed better at school and had happier lives. Sure, there are problems with that study and the truth is probably more like “gay parents are just as good at raising children as straight people”, but the point is…

Conflating 2 disparate issues around sexuality and gender where one is clear cut and one is confusing is ridiculous. It’s exactly the same argument people use against trans when they start talking about trans sportspeople. Who ducking cares! That’s like 0.01% of the population, it has no bearing on the other 99.99%. So why make them suffer by saying there’s no problem with homophobia?

Agreed. I personally regard the idea of teenagers transitioning as a minefield due to the issues you raise, plus the fact that unless they are 18 they are a child and thus need parental consent which makes home life difficult. I also recall someone who had transitioned suing the NHS for allowing them to do so whilst a teenager. This isn't a decision to be taken lightly.

Completely different situation though to accepting someone who decides they are homosexual whilst a teenager. Given that the vast majority of homosexuals don't appear to show an interest in changing gender, why conflate the 2.

Lots of people are suffering, that don't mean there's always funding and an idea on how to proceed, nor perhaps even should it as a blanket rule.

Also, left handed people aren't normal. I do though like the idea the political left are the virtuous kind people in all this and the political right are the persecutors

Sandydragon wrote:

Stom wrote:

morepork wrote:No no no Tom Cruise, I said I was skeptical that experimenting with child development was going on, your response to which was a link to that article. I'm not really interested in some sort of emotional appeal argument when there is actual data out there. Perhaps you should simply state your motivation for further contributions to the Fred? It looks to me like you don't like the idea of young people transitioning, but I'm prepared to be wrong.

I’ll be honest, I don’t like the idea of teenagers transitioning. Puberty causes all kinds of confusion around sexuality as it is, it’s bound to be confusing as hell if you’re struggling with your gender, too.

But that doesn’t mean I conflate it with saying being gay is not normal, or could cause problems for humanity…

Agreed. I personally regard the idea of teenagers transitioning as a minefield due to the issues you raise, plus the fact that unless they are 18 they are a child and thus need parental consent which makes home life difficult. I also recall someone who had transitioned suing the NHS for allowing them to do so whilst a teenager. This isn't a decision to be taken lightly.

Completely different situation though to accepting someone who decides they are homosexual whilst a teenager. Given that the vast majority of homosexuals don't appear to show an interest in changing gender, why conflate the 2.

I will take a moment to note that "teenagers transitioning" means 17-19 year olds, as anything younger than that you're not allowed to, for the reasons raised above. What does happen before the age of 17 is puberty blockers, which basically pause puberty and thus stop the kid from going through the wrong puberty until they're old enough to make an informed decision. They're not a permanent intervention - they don't stop or cancel puberty, so if the kid realises they made a mistake, they stop taking them and the body then goes through the same puberty they would've had before, just X years later. They're well tested, well understood medications (as they've been used for decades for various other conditions like menopause or abnormally early onset puberty) and all they do is delay things so the kid is old enough to make a grown up decision, but anti-trans people deliberately conflate them with surgical and hormonal transitions so they can imply that 12 year olds are having their breasts cut off because they're a tomboy.

Also, I can highly recommend participating in this thread having put Doctor Zhivago on mute - watching Morepork argue with an invisible poster has a very Garfield Minus Garfield feel to it.

Puja

I'm only waiting for MorePork to start arguing with MorePork perhaps something in the trans discussion, how it ever robbed the terms cis and trans to begin with (probably cultural appropriation) and frankly ignored the feelings of EZ isomerism, 'tis a cruel world

Digby wrote:I'm only waiting for MorePork to start arguing with MorePork perhaps something in the trans discussion, how it ever robbed the terms cis and trans to begin with (probably cultural appropriation) and frankly ignored the feelings of EZ isomerism, 'tis a cruel world

away to fuck. You are mixing your organic metaphors to make I don't know what point.

Zhivago wrote:

morepork wrote:No no no Tom Cruise, I said I was skeptical that experimenting with child development was going on, your response to which was a link to that article. I'm not really interested in some sort of emotional appeal argument when there is actual data out there. Perhaps you should simply state your motivation for further contributions to the Fred? It looks to me like you don't like the idea of young people transitioning, but I'm prepared to be wrong.

I have been very clear. I am concerned that society is intentionally and unintentionally impacting children's development, due to a combination of hubris, ideology, carelessness, lack of knowledge, and profit motive.

I believe in prevention being better than cure. But as always there's always so much more money in curing than there is in preventing. My argument is that we should seek to prevent these issues by applying the precautionary principle a bit more and via funding sufficient research to attain understanding of the causes, rather than abdicating responsibility to these young children and allowing society's myriad of environmental stimuli to interfere with their development resulting in a demand for big pharma to make a tidy profit out of 'curing' them, and politicians who like identity politics to gain from the fragmentation of identity within society, all the while shutting down any attempt of people who question this reckless and radical reaction.

That doesn't mean I'm against people transitioning - it means that I am aghast that we are so keen to rush in to 'cure' (sometimes without proper consent and with dodgy ethical practices) without funding enough research to understand exactly why we need to.

Human primates are not consensus model systems for the promotion of casual anecdote in the biological sciences. That's quite a hard sell outside of an audience of Bond villians. If you think profit the only motivator for the advancement of medical science then I feel only sympathy for your understanding of the empirical methodology that gave you Mendelian ratios, a physical definition of the units of inheritance and risk of disease, the aseptic environment of a modern hospital, and a diet that would avoid you getting scurvy before having the chance to preach earnest opinion to happy healthy locals that end up in need of an antidote to your diseased high horse.

morepork wrote:

Digby wrote:I'm only waiting for MorePork to start arguing with MorePork perhaps something in the trans discussion, how it ever robbed the terms cis and trans to begin with (probably cultural appropriation) and frankly ignored the feelings of EZ isomerism, 'tis a cruel world

away to fuck. You are mixing your organic metaphors to make I don't know what point.

why only organic?

morepork wrote:

Digby wrote:I'm only waiting for MorePork to start arguing with MorePork perhaps something in the trans discussion, how it ever robbed the terms cis and trans to begin with (probably cultural appropriation) and frankly ignored the feelings of EZ isomerism, 'tis a cruel world

away to fuck. You are mixing your organic metaphors to make I don't know what point.

Jesus mp, stay on target. I don't want to have to mute Digby as well.

Puja

morepork wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

morepork wrote:No no no Tom Cruise, I said I was skeptical that experimenting with child development was going on, your response to which was a link to that article. I'm not really interested in some sort of emotional appeal argument when there is actual data out there. Perhaps you should simply state your motivation for further contributions to the Fred? It looks to me like you don't like the idea of young people transitioning, but I'm prepared to be wrong.

I have been very clear. I am concerned that society is intentionally and unintentionally impacting children's development, due to a combination of hubris, ideology, carelessness, lack of knowledge, and profit motive.

I believe in prevention being better than cure. But as always there's always so much more money in curing than there is in preventing. My argument is that we should seek to prevent these issues by applying the precautionary principle a bit more and via funding sufficient research to attain understanding of the causes, rather than abdicating responsibility to these young children and allowing society's myriad of environmental stimuli to interfere with their development resulting in a demand for big pharma to make a tidy profit out of 'curing' them, and politicians who like identity politics to gain from the fragmentation of identity within society, all the while shutting down any attempt of people who question this reckless and radical reaction.

That doesn't mean I'm against people transitioning - it means that I am aghast that we are so keen to rush in to 'cure' (sometimes without proper consent and with dodgy ethical practices) without funding enough research to understand exactly why we need to.

Human primates are not consensus model systems for the promotion of casual anecdote in the biological sciences. That's quite a hard sell outside of an audience of Bond villians. If you think profit the only motivator for the advancement of medical science then I feel only sympathy for your understanding of the empirical methodology that gave you Mendelian ratios, a physical definition of the units of inheritance and risk of disease, the aseptic environment of a modern hospital, and a diet that would avoid you getting scurvy before having the chance to preach earnest opinion to happy healthy locals that end up in need of an antidote to your diseased high horse.

Strawman much? I literally said the reasons were "due to a combination of hubris, ideology, carelessness, lack of knowledge, and profit motive." Pretty clear from this that I think profit motive is just one of many reasons for the lack of funding.

In the corporate world investment decisions are obviously heavily influenced by profit, but luckily we have public grants and research. We need more publicly funded research. The market is not funding enough research in this area. That is clear by how little of the causes we understand so far. We are progressing but slowly.

morepork wrote:

Digby wrote:I'm only waiting for MorePork to start arguing with MorePork perhaps something in the trans discussion, how it ever robbed the terms cis and trans to begin with (probably cultural appropriation) and frankly ignored the feelings of EZ isomerism, 'tis a cruel world

away to fuck. You are mixing your organic metaphors to make I don't know what point.

think his point is

Puja wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Stom wrote:
I’ll be honest, I don’t like the idea of teenagers transitioning. Puberty causes all kinds of confusion around sexuality as it is, it’s bound to be confusing as hell if you’re struggling with your gender, too.

But that doesn’t mean I conflate it with saying being gay is not normal, or could cause problems for humanity…

Agreed. I personally regard the idea of teenagers transitioning as a minefield due to the issues you raise, plus the fact that unless they are 18 they are a child and thus need parental consent which makes home life difficult. I also recall someone who had transitioned suing the NHS for allowing them to do so whilst a teenager. This isn't a decision to be taken lightly.

Completely different situation though to accepting someone who decides they are homosexual whilst a teenager. Given that the vast majority of homosexuals don't appear to show an interest in changing gender, why conflate the 2.

I will take a moment to note that "teenagers transitioning" means 17-19 year olds, as anything younger than that you're not allowed to, for the reasons raised above. What does happen before the age of 17 is puberty blockers, which basically pause puberty and thus stop the kid from going through the wrong puberty until they're old enough to make an informed decision. They're not a permanent intervention - they don't stop or cancel puberty, so if the kid realises they made a mistake, they stop taking them and the body then goes through the same puberty they would've had before, just X years later. They're well tested, well understood medications (as they've been used for decades for various other conditions like menopause or abnormally early onset puberty) and all they do is delay things so the kid is old enough to make a grown up decision, but anti-trans people deliberately conflate them with surgical and hormonal transitions so they can imply that 12 year olds are having their breasts cut off because they're a tomboy.

Also, I can highly recommend participating in this thread having put Doctor Zhivago on mute - watching Morepork argue with an invisible poster has a very Garfield Minus Garfield feel to it.

Puja

So you're happy to prevent puberty in a teenager - thats still messing with a natural processes at a point where they are probably dealing with many conflicting thoughts. If nothing else its encouraging teenagers to make a first step when they are still juveniles.

Sandydragon wrote:

Puja wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
Agreed. I personally regard the idea of teenagers transitioning as a minefield due to the issues you raise, plus the fact that unless they are 18 they are a child and thus need parental consent which makes home life difficult. I also recall someone who had transitioned suing the NHS for allowing them to do so whilst a teenager. This isn't a decision to be taken lightly.

Completely different situation though to accepting someone who decides they are homosexual whilst a teenager. Given that the vast majority of homosexuals don't appear to show an interest in changing gender, why conflate the 2.

I will take a moment to note that "teenagers transitioning" means 17-19 year olds, as anything younger than that you're not allowed to, for the reasons raised above. What does happen before the age of 17 is puberty blockers, which basically pause puberty and thus stop the kid from going through the wrong puberty until they're old enough to make an informed decision. They're not a permanent intervention - they don't stop or cancel puberty, so if the kid realises they made a mistake, they stop taking them and the body then goes through the same puberty they would've had before, just X years later. They're well tested, well understood medications (as they've been used for decades for various other conditions like menopause or abnormally early onset puberty) and all they do is delay things so the kid is old enough to make a grown up decision, but anti-trans people deliberately conflate them with surgical and hormonal transitions so they can imply that 12 year olds are having their breasts cut off because they're a tomboy.

Also, I can highly recommend participating in this thread having put Doctor Zhivago on mute - watching Morepork argue with an invisible poster has a very Garfield Minus Garfield feel to it.

Puja

So you're happy to prevent puberty in a teenager - thats still messing with a natural processes at a point where they are probably dealing with many conflicting thoughts. If nothing else its encouraging teenagers to make a first step when they are still juveniles.

Happier than I would be letting them make an irreversible decision that could result in them being in the wrong body while they are still dealing with those conflicting thoughts. I will note that I count "going through a puberty that they're pretty sure isn't the right one for them" as being an irreversible decision, just the same as giving a kid hormones would be.

I'd far rather give a confused kid time to figure themselves out, than insist that they have to make a final and mostly irrevokable decision early when we have the option to give them that delay. Absolute worst case scenario, they realise they were wrong and are cis as the day is long and you just stop the blockers. Far less harmful than making a young boy grow tits or a girl grow a beard because we won't let them make a decision themselves but are happy to make one for them with inaction.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Puja wrote:
I will take a moment to note that "teenagers transitioning" means 17-19 year olds, as anything younger than that you're not allowed to, for the reasons raised above. What does happen before the age of 17 is puberty blockers, which basically pause puberty and thus stop the kid from going through the wrong puberty until they're old enough to make an informed decision. They're not a permanent intervention - they don't stop or cancel puberty, so if the kid realises they made a mistake, they stop taking them and the body then goes through the same puberty they would've had before, just X years later. They're well tested, well understood medications (as they've been used for decades for various other conditions like menopause or abnormally early onset puberty) and all they do is delay things so the kid is old enough to make a grown up decision, but anti-trans people deliberately conflate them with surgical and hormonal transitions so they can imply that 12 year olds are having their breasts cut off because they're a tomboy.

Also, I can highly recommend participating in this thread having put Doctor Zhivago on mute - watching Morepork argue with an invisible poster has a very Garfield Minus Garfield feel to it.

Puja

So you're happy to prevent puberty in a teenager - thats still messing with a natural processes at a point where they are probably dealing with many conflicting thoughts. If nothing else its encouraging teenagers to make a first step when they are still juveniles.

Happier than I would be letting them make an irreversible decision that could result in them being in the wrong body while they are still dealing with those conflicting thoughts. I will note that I count "going through a puberty that they're pretty sure isn't the right one for them" as being an irreversible decision, just the same as giving a kid hormones would be.

I'd far rather give a confused kid time to figure themselves out, than insist that they have to make a final and mostly irrevokable decision early when we have the option to give them that delay. Absolute worst case scenario, they realise they were wrong and are cis as the day is long and you just stop the blockers. Far less harmful than making a young boy grow tits or a girl grow a beard because we won't let them make a decision themselves but are happy to make one for them with inaction.

Puja

You make light of what is a very experimental treatment carried out off-label while there is a severe lack of reliable studies as to the effects of said treatment. A report by NICE last year looked at the studies about GnRH analogues and found the studies to be of very poor quality and could not reliably come to any conclusions about their safety.

Why are you making light of potential risks of such treatment? For ideological reasons.

It is exactly this kind of promotion without consideration of potential risks that I find totally irresponsible. It is precisely because of this attitude that I cannot fully support the LGBT movement when this sort of reckless attitude is the norm.

I get a notification saying you've quoted me Doctor Zhivago, but I still can't see it. I'm gonna assume it's something along the lines of an appeal-to-nature fallacy, with a dash of bad science or "Think of the children" thrown in for flavour, and feel ever more comfortable about my decision to mute and not engage with your bullshit.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Puja wrote:
I will take a moment to note that "teenagers transitioning" means 17-19 year olds, as anything younger than that you're not allowed to, for the reasons raised above. What does happen before the age of 17 is puberty blockers, which basically pause puberty and thus stop the kid from going through the wrong puberty until they're old enough to make an informed decision. They're not a permanent intervention - they don't stop or cancel puberty, so if the kid realises they made a mistake, they stop taking them and the body then goes through the same puberty they would've had before, just X years later. They're well tested, well understood medications (as they've been used for decades for various other conditions like menopause or abnormally early onset puberty) and all they do is delay things so the kid is old enough to make a grown up decision, but anti-trans people deliberately conflate them with surgical and hormonal transitions so they can imply that 12 year olds are having their breasts cut off because they're a tomboy.

Also, I can highly recommend participating in this thread having put Doctor Zhivago on mute - watching Morepork argue with an invisible poster has a very Garfield Minus Garfield feel to it.

Puja

So you're happy to prevent puberty in a teenager - thats still messing with a natural processes at a point where they are probably dealing with many conflicting thoughts. If nothing else its encouraging teenagers to make a first step when they are still juveniles.

Happier than I would be letting them make an irreversible decision that could result in them being in the wrong body while they are still dealing with those conflicting thoughts. I will note that I count "going through a puberty that they're pretty sure isn't the right one for them" as being an irreversible decision, just the same as giving a kid hormones would be.

I'd far rather give a confused kid time to figure themselves out, than insist that they have to make a final and mostly irrevokable decision early when we have the option to give them that delay. Absolute worst case scenario, they realise they were wrong and are cis as the day is long and you just stop the blockers. Far less harmful than making a young boy grow tits or a girl grow a beard because we won't let them make a decision themselves but are happy to make one for them with inaction.

Puja

Allowing puberty to happen naturally isn't an irreversible decision, sex change operations are an option later on. And we now add a new variable into younger children thought processes where they are hugely confused about life as a whole and add more stress to the family as well?

The NHS has recently changed its position from suggesting that puberty blockers are fully reversible with no long term effects to one that recognises that there may be long term effects which they don't fully understand yet. I accept thats probably as a result of the Tavistock Clinic being sued, but adding additional chemicals to a child's body when they are still developing is not something that should be done lightly. Id rather better counselling for children who believe they are the wrong gender with medical intervention possible once they have fully developed and understand themselves better.

Sandydragon wrote:

Puja wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: So you're happy to prevent puberty in a teenager - thats still messing with a natural processes at a point where they are probably dealing with many conflicting thoughts. If nothing else its encouraging teenagers to make a first step when they are still juveniles.

Happier than I would be letting them make an irreversible decision that could result in them being in the wrong body while they are still dealing with those conflicting thoughts. I will note that I count "going through a puberty that they're pretty sure isn't the right one for them" as being an irreversible decision, just the same as giving a kid hormones would be.

I'd far rather give a confused kid time to figure themselves out, than insist that they have to make a final and mostly irrevokable decision early when we have the option to give them that delay. Absolute worst case scenario, they realise they were wrong and are cis as the day is long and you just stop the blockers. Far less harmful than making a young boy grow tits or a girl grow a beard because we won't let them make a decision themselves but are happy to make one for them with inaction.

Puja

Allowing puberty to happen naturally isn't an irreversible decision, sex change operations are an option later on. And we now add a new variable into younger children thought processes where they are hugely confused about life as a whole and add more stress to the family as well?

The NHS has recently changed its position from suggesting that puberty blockers are fully reversible with no long term effects to one that recognises that there may be long term effects which they don't fully understand yet. I accept thats probably as a result of the Tavistock Clinic being sued, but adding additional chemicals to a child's body when they are still developing is not something that should be done lightly. Id rather better counselling for children who believe they are the wrong gender with medical intervention possible once they have fully developed and understand themselves better.

I don't know whether you fully appreciate what a "sex change operation later on" involves. If we're talking about a trans girl, puberty causes a widening of the jaw and masculine facial changes, growing a beard, height changes, hip changes, shoulder changes, and voice changes. Of those, only two of them can be changed after they have happened - laser treatment for the beard (rarely available on the NHS and expensive privately) and the facial structure which can be altered through massive plastic surgery (almost never available on the NHS and ridiculously expensive, as well as dangerous and painful like any operation). Changes to the body's soft-tissue and musculature will come through hormones, but broad shoulders, narrow hips, deep voice, and being 6ft cannot be changed once they're done. For a trans boy it's the same in reverse, with the exception that a female voice can be lowered through hormones and a beard can be grown (although the stigma that comes from being a 5ft0 bloke is more than a 6ft0 woman gets, and it's far easier to add padding to look more curvy than it is to hide wide hips, so swings and roundabouts). The waiting list for top surgery (removal of breasts) is 3 years to even have a consultation on the NHS and it's £12k privately. It is absolutely an irreversible decision and I would bet if you asked any trans person if they wished they could have transitioned before puberty/taken puberty blockers until they could transition, you'd get a 100% yes.

I would also take issue with the idea that we're "introducing a new variable". Trans people have always existed - the change is that we're moving towards an environment where we don't just deny their existence and insist to teenagers that we know better than them about their mind and body, so more of them are coming out/not repressing. With that, there will inevitably be cis kids who are confused, who are swept along by other people, who don't know what's going on and cling to a label in the hope that that's them - teenagers, WYGD? However, feckless as teenagers are as a group, I knew I was a boy by the age of 16. I'm pretty sure everyone here also knew what gender they were at that point. Seems weird to assume that today's generation of teenagers lack the same self-awareness of their own body to the extent that they cannot even be trusted to have time to think about it.

On the medical issues, I will plead some ignorance - I know that the drugs have been widely used for decades for other medical needs (including stopping early puberty in children where it comes on at age 8 or something stupid) and there have been no noted long-term effects, but I am not a doctor nor a specialist. I suspect that the NHS are hedging their bets, as you say.

Right now the argument seems to be, "We haven't got any evidence that puberty blockers cause any negative effects, but we can't be 100% certain that there might not possibly be something in the future that we're not aware of yet, so it seems better to deny treatment to trans kids, even though there's lots of evidence that doing so increases suicide and self-harm rates massively." Yes, the experience of that one cis kid who went through puberty blockers and then fully transitioned when they were older and then realised that they were wrong is shitty and I really feel for them ending up stuck in the wrong body and having to have massive surgery to fix it. But that's exactly what denying puberty blockers is sentencing thousands of trans kids to and I don't get how we can care about one kid ending up in the wrong adult body and not the thousands of others.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Puja wrote:
Happier than I would be letting them make an irreversible decision that could result in them being in the wrong body while they are still dealing with those conflicting thoughts. I will note that I count "going through a puberty that they're pretty sure isn't the right one for them" as being an irreversible decision, just the same as giving a kid hormones would be.

I'd far rather give a confused kid time to figure themselves out, than insist that they have to make a final and mostly irrevokable decision early when we have the option to give them that delay. Absolute worst case scenario, they realise they were wrong and are cis as the day is long and you just stop the blockers. Far less harmful than making a young boy grow tits or a girl grow a beard because we won't let them make a decision themselves but are happy to make one for them with inaction.

Puja

Allowing puberty to happen naturally isn't an irreversible decision, sex change operations are an option later on. And we now add a new variable into younger children thought processes where they are hugely confused about life as a whole and add more stress to the family as well?

The NHS has recently changed its position from suggesting that puberty blockers are fully reversible with no long term effects to one that recognises that there may be long term effects which they don't fully understand yet. I accept thats probably as a result of the Tavistock Clinic being sued, but adding additional chemicals to a child's body when they are still developing is not something that should be done lightly. Id rather better counselling for children who believe they are the wrong gender with medical intervention possible once they have fully developed and understand themselves better.

I don't know whether you fully appreciate what a "sex change operation later on" involves. If we're talking about a trans girl, puberty causes a widening of the jaw and masculine facial changes, growing a beard, height changes, hip changes, shoulder changes, and voice changes. Of those, only two of them can be changed after they have happened - laser treatment for the beard (rarely available on the NHS and expensive privately) and the facial structure which can be altered through massive plastic surgery (almost never available on the NHS and ridiculously expensive, as well as dangerous and painful like any operation). Changes to the body's soft-tissue and musculature will come through hormones, but broad shoulders, narrow hips, deep voice, and being 6ft cannot be changed once they're done. For a trans boy it's the same in reverse, with the exception that a female voice can be lowered through hormones and a beard can be grown (although the stigma that comes from being a 5ft0 bloke is more than a 6ft0 woman gets, and it's far easier to add padding to look more curvy than it is to hide wide hips, so swings and roundabouts). The waiting list for top surgery (removal of breasts) is 3 years to even have a consultation on the NHS and it's £12k privately. It is absolutely an irreversible decision and I would bet if you asked any trans person if they wished they could have transitioned before puberty/taken puberty blockers until they could transition, you'd get a 100% yes.

I would also take issue with the idea that we're "introducing a new variable". Trans people have always existed - the change is that we're moving towards an environment where we don't just deny their existence and insist to teenagers that we know better than them about their mind and body, so more of them are coming out/not repressing. With that, there will inevitably be cis kids who are confused, who are swept along by other people, who don't know what's going on and cling to a label in the hope that that's them - teenagers, WYGD? However, feckless as teenagers are as a group, I knew I was a boy by the age of 16. I'm pretty sure everyone here also knew what gender they were at that point. Seems weird to assume that today's generation of teenagers lack the same self-awareness of their own body to the extent that they cannot even be trusted to have time to think about it.

On the medical issues, I will plead some ignorance - I know that the drugs have been widely used for decades for other medical needs (including stopping early puberty in children where it comes on at age 8 or something stupid) and there have been no noted long-term effects, but I am not a doctor nor a specialist. I suspect that the NHS are hedging their bets, as you say.

Right now the argument seems to be, "We haven't got any evidence that puberty blockers cause any negative effects, but we can't be 100% certain that there might not possibly be something in the future that we're not aware of yet, so it seems better to deny treatment to trans kids, even though there's lots of evidence that doing so increases suicide and self-harm rates massively." Yes, the experience of that one cis kid who went through puberty blockers and then fully transitioned when they were older and then realised that they were wrong is shitty and I really feel for them ending up stuck in the wrong body and having to have massive surgery to fix it. But that's exactly what denying puberty blockers is sentencing thousands of trans kids to and I don't get how we can care about one kid ending up in the wrong adult body and not the thousands of others.

Puja

How many children pausing puberty via puberty blockers actually transition?

In this study just 12.2% persisted to further treatment after the puberty blockers, and that's not even considering how many regreted after persisting. The vast majority of these confused children are just that - confused. For them it's a phase they go through, and they're faced with this prospect of being 'cured'. It must be really damn confusing. They would be far better off if we just fully funded investigation into the causes, and in the meantime we should limit anything that can make it even more difficult for the children to know what gender they are. Society is contributing to their confusion.

Puja wrote:

morepork wrote:

Digby wrote:I'm only waiting for MorePork to start arguing with MorePork perhaps something in the trans discussion, how it ever robbed the terms cis and trans to begin with (probably cultural appropriation) and frankly ignored the feelings of EZ isomerism, 'tis a cruel world

away to fuck. You are mixing your organic metaphors to make I don't know what point.

Jesus mp, stay on target. I don't want to have to mute Digby as well.

Puja

What is the target in all this? Minority bashing, individual vs collective societies, or my wondering how to insert a joke based around legend being conflated with ligand?

Puja wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Puja wrote:
Happier than I would be letting them make an irreversible decision that could result in them being in the wrong body while they are still dealing with those conflicting thoughts. I will note that I count "going through a puberty that they're pretty sure isn't the right one for them" as being an irreversible decision, just the same as giving a kid hormones would be.

I'd far rather give a confused kid time to figure themselves out, than insist that they have to make a final and mostly irrevokable decision early when we have the option to give them that delay. Absolute worst case scenario, they realise they were wrong and are cis as the day is long and you just stop the blockers. Far less harmful than making a young boy grow tits or a girl grow a beard because we won't let them make a decision themselves but are happy to make one for them with inaction.

Puja

Allowing puberty to happen naturally isn't an irreversible decision, sex change operations are an option later on. And we now add a new variable into younger children thought processes where they are hugely confused about life as a whole and add more stress to the family as well?

The NHS has recently changed its position from suggesting that puberty blockers are fully reversible with no long term effects to one that recognises that there may be long term effects which they don't fully understand yet. I accept thats probably as a result of the Tavistock Clinic being sued, but adding additional chemicals to a child's body when they are still developing is not something that should be done lightly. Id rather better counselling for children who believe they are the wrong gender with medical intervention possible once they have fully developed and understand themselves better.

I don't know whether you fully appreciate what a "sex change operation later on" involves. If we're talking about a trans girl, puberty causes a widening of the jaw and masculine facial changes, growing a beard, height changes, hip changes, shoulder changes, and voice changes. Of those, only two of them can be changed after they have happened - laser treatment for the beard (rarely available on the NHS and expensive privately) and the facial structure which can be altered through massive plastic surgery (almost never available on the NHS and ridiculously expensive, as well as dangerous and painful like any operation). Changes to the body's soft-tissue and musculature will come through hormones, but broad shoulders, narrow hips, deep voice, and being 6ft cannot be changed once they're done. For a trans boy it's the same in reverse, with the exception that a female voice can be lowered through hormones and a beard can be grown (although the stigma that comes from being a 5ft0 bloke is more than a 6ft0 woman gets, and it's far easier to add padding to look more curvy than it is to hide wide hips, so swings and roundabouts). The waiting list for top surgery (removal of breasts) is 3 years to even have a consultation on the NHS and it's £12k privately. It is absolutely an irreversible decision and I would bet if you asked any trans person if they wished they could have transitioned before puberty/taken puberty blockers until they could transition, you'd get a 100% yes.

I would also take issue with the idea that we're "introducing a new variable". Trans people have always existed - the change is that we're moving towards an environment where we don't just deny their existence and insist to teenagers that we know better than them about their mind and body, so more of them are coming out/not repressing. With that, there will inevitably be cis kids who are confused, who are swept along by other people, who don't know what's going on and cling to a label in the hope that that's them - teenagers, WYGD? However, feckless as teenagers are as a group, I knew I was a boy by the age of 16. I'm pretty sure everyone here also knew what gender they were at that point. Seems weird to assume that today's generation of teenagers lack the same self-awareness of their own body to the extent that they cannot even be trusted to have time to think about it.

On the medical issues, I will plead some ignorance - I know that the drugs have been widely used for decades for other medical needs (including stopping early puberty in children where it comes on at age 8 or something stupid) and there have been no noted long-term effects, but I am not a doctor nor a specialist. I suspect that the NHS are hedging their bets, as you say.

Right now the argument seems to be, "We haven't got any evidence that puberty blockers cause any negative effects, but we can't be 100% certain that there might not possibly be something in the future that we're not aware of yet, so it seems better to deny treatment to trans kids, even though there's lots of evidence that doing so increases suicide and self-harm rates massively." Yes, the experience of that one cis kid who went through puberty blockers and then fully transitioned when they were older and then realised that they were wrong is shitty and I really feel for them ending up stuck in the wrong body and having to have massive surgery to fix it. But that's exactly what denying puberty blockers is sentencing thousands of trans kids to and I don't get how we can care about one kid ending up in the wrong adult body and not the thousands of others.

Puja

Strawman. I haven't suggested that trans people are a new thing. And Im not suggesting that we ask them to keep quiet and remain hidden. My issue is with medical treatment for kids. I don't believe they are in a position to make those decisions at that stage in their lives and we should be looking to avoid medical interventions until they are adults.

Let's not forget the potential psychological impact of such drugs. Below is one case where a patient once on puberty blockers didn't want to come off them.
https://jme.bmj.com/content/46/11/743

Case study
Phoenix, 18, was assigned female at birth but has identified as gender non-binary (not entirely/exclusively male or female) since age 5. Phoenix uses they/them pronouns, has short hair and wears gender-neutral clothes. When Phoenix was 11, they began puberty and became extremely distressed by development of their breast buds and anxious about menstruation commencing soon. This prompted Phoenix and their parents to ask Phoenix’s paediatrician for puberty blockers to halt puberty and stop further pubertal development. At that time, Phoenix told their paediatrician they did not want to discontinue the use of such blockers in the future, as they did not want to go through any puberty. Given Phoenix’s severe distress, Phoenix’s paediatrician agreed puberty blockers should be given, but informed Phoenix and their parents he was not prepared to prescribe long-term puberty suppression, as this is riskier than short-term suppression. The paediatrician stated that, when Phoenix turned 16 and had a better sense of their gender identity, they would meet to discuss whether Phoenix wished to discontinue the puberty blockers and (1) revert to their endogenous (female) sex hormones or (2) commence testosterone.

When Phoenix turned 16, they informed their paediatrician that they did not want option (1) or (2). Rather, Phoenix was confident they would identify as non-binary for the rest of their life and wanted to stay on puberty blockers ‘forever’ to ensure their body remained in a ‘genderless’ state. Reluctantly, the paediatrician agreed to extend Phoenix’s time on blockers for another 2 years.

Recently, Phoenix entered the adult healthcare system and informed their new doctor that their desire to continue puberty suppression on an ongoing basis has not changed. Phoenix feels that remaining in an androgynous, peripubertal state is the only way that their body can truly reflect their non-binary gender identity. Phoenix, supported by their parents, has the financial means to pay for ongoing puberty suppression (OPS) (approximately $A5200 per year in Australia).

Phoenix does not have any underlying medical conditions which would specifically contraindicate hormonal intervention. Nevertheless, Phoenix’s new doctor feels that OPS is still too physically risky, especially with regard to bone health, and wonders if Phoenix has underlying psychological issues about not wanting to grow up.