Admitted lack of knowledge is not a convincing basis for a position in my view.
Well, no. I’m aware that many European countries have now reversed their position on “gender affirming” mutilation of minors.
Claim uncited.
That’s because the evidence of long-term benefit is lacking.
Building off uncited claim with another uncited claim.
In short, this is all experimental and these children used as guinea pigs.
Conclusion built off of nothing but uncited claims that are nothing less that baseless presumptions.
Not to mention that NONE of it is experimental. Brought to you by the same people who fail to teach the history of India's Hijra, or any of the third gender communities whose members included eunuchs, or any of the societies who has eunuchs operate in any special caste roles, who documented things about those eunuchs, including that history is littered with pogroms and eradication of eunuchs.
We have what is the most expansive and well documented medical condition on earth, one documented with human subjects as much as animal subjects going back to the dawn of recorded histories.
It may have been the first surgical procedure ever developed.
It is not experimental.
It is well researched.
It actually increases longevity, not that people seem so interested in it for that.
Blockers make the surgery unnecessary for those who want it's effects for now, until they can be really sure they want to not have testicles.
I am primarily interested in the rights of those who do not want testicles.
People who want testicles do not concern me. There are rights they specifically do not deserve, and those rights are the rights to enter places designated for the common disrobing and ablution of people who may become pregnant from sperms primarily, and for those who have no testicles and ejaculate no sperms.
If such people want to claim threat from those affected by the hormone family of "testosterones", as well, that's also fine by me, I can't argue against that. Studies have shown that trans prison populations are way below trans persons among the public.
Really, the discussion is about eunuchs, and what rights they have, and whether having testicles ought abridge someone's rights.
Oleg argues for the right to call everyone born with testicles "men" and everyone born without testicles and with ovaries "women" (never mind the ones born with both or neither), and to never allow divergence from that.
It means that in teenage years, I think the most appropriate path is blockers for at least six months before a social transition is advised, or to have already been socially self-selected prior to puberty, and blockers through the age of 18 should be seen as sufficient for space access after some initial period, and hormone access after the age of 10 or a period of postponed puberty for at least 3 years after onset (given an acceptable medical definition of onset of puberty), whichever occurs later in life.
The problem I see with this is the psychological zeitgeist that will drive panic against such. Many mothers and at least some fathers want every child to give them grandchildren. Many cultural elements have been laid down over the aeons to ensure it happens, often 'by any means necessary'.
The very existence of eunuchs seems threatening to that will. The right to become one instills the fear that one of their children will be struck by this "disease".
Never mind that all the eunuchs I know are white collar college graduates.
Most eunuchs seek to be "women" socially, and also seek to be effected by estrogen and progesterone. It is only recently that this has become available.
I see no reason to deny them this right, especially seeing as we need to reduce the global population anyway.
www.city-journal.org
Satire
jonathanhaidt.substack.com
ukom.no
