Sanity in the UK?

[Jarhyn]

These blockers also stunt mental growth.

Ah, a claim without evidence. I think I know where to file that..

here is one:

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00044/full

This isnt fucking evidence! This is some guy talking about some other study, wherein the result was NOT finding a statistically significant result.

His COMMENTARY can only invalidate the original study and give us a big fucking "we don't know anything I guess".

Further, the study was on precocial puberty, and isn't even necessarily relevant in the time-frames of use being discussed, or an analagous biological situation either: the subjects of the study were already into an early puberty to the point it became observable and then it was terminated through blockers.

Though, it's you lot that insist on not letting kids have a puberty of their desired path WITH their friends and peers.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I have seen a lot of hypotheses as to why transgenderism is apparently rising, probably a lot are bunkum, but who knows until it is studied objectlively.

For example when young girls by accident or on a dare watch hardcore porn and see just how animalistic and mean it can be they don't want to be the focus of that violence as a woman. This is what Abigail Shrier talked about. But I don't see this as too likely for a girl to actually say, "mom, give me testosterone so I don't get triple penetrated and have to lick the toilet bowl clean after getting bukkaked by 50 men. "

That's a pretty small minority of porn.

Porn is like processed sugar, humans are not made to be able to consume so much constantly without negative side effects.

[Citation needed]

 

[Loren Pechtel]

These blockers also stunt mental growth.

I'm not seeing that in a moderate Google search, although I did run into a mention of delayed mental maturity. Note: delayed, not stopped.

 

[Emily Lake]

Exactly. It also goes to the old wisdom of "measure twice, cut once": You can't undo a puberty. You only get one chance to get what you actually want out of it without turning to surgical remediations.

You don't actually get to choose what you want to get out of it regardless. A genetically male person who uses cross-sex hormones during puberty will suppress facial hair growth and will develop breasts, but their penis doesn't fall off. It does, however, prohibit the growth of an adult penis, which can leave that person with an inability to achieve orgasm and enjoy healthy sexual activity. Similarly, a genetically female person who uses cross-sex hormones gets bigger and stronger and grows a beard, but they don't sprout a penis and their uterus doesn't fall out. It can, however, lead to permanent sterility.

And puberty blockers can produce life-long health risks from delaying the natural course of human development, even if cross-sex hormones are never used.

Wow, you are off base.

In what way?

The vast majority of trans people never seek a bottom surgery.

I know that. What relevance does that have to my post?

In fact, there are life long impacts from using blockers: people who do end up a fair shade taller. Also, you know what else has health risks? Fucking surgical remediations.

Again, what relevance does that have to my post?

Delaying puberty increases the risk of heart disease, decreases bone density (and increases risk of more severe density loss in later ages), impedes mental and emotional maturity. They also keep the child locked into childhood, when all of their peers and friends are maturing physically and mentally, which risks intensifying a feeling of isolation, and reinforces anxiety and depression.

That might all be the least bad option for a genuinely dysphoric child, absolutely. But since a lot of children - especially female children - go through fairly intense body dysmorphia, anxiety, aloneness, and anxiety as a natural part of female puberty, and since a lot of children go through periods of gender confusion and discomfort with the societally imposed gender role expectations, puberty blockers have a high likelihood of being over-prescribed to otherwise normally progressing children. If used for too long, they also risk permanent sterility.

The side effects and long-term risks of prescribing puberty blockers to a child who is NOT genuinely and severely dysphoric isn't a better option.

If I had more confidence that they were only being prescribed after considerable evaluation and counseling, and that they were only being prescribed to genuinely dysphoric children in extreme cases, I'd have a lot less wariness. But if you've been keeping up with the complaints and the legal action around Tavistock and GID in the UK, that's not what's happening.

I think it is reasonable for people to be hesitant about processes that are not immediately medically necessary and which can permanently damage children. I think it is the duty of adults to protect children from becoming permanently dependent on medical intervention when it is not required for their health.

 

[Emily Lake]

Though, it's you lot that insist on not letting kids have a puberty of their desired path WITH their friends and peers.

Eleven and Twelve year olds aren't particularly known for their consistency, and are rather prone to changing their minds.

Look, I understand the position of sympathy and compassion from which you're coming. And it's a laudable emotional reaction to care deeply for the emotional well-being of another person. But we are the adults, it's our job to protect children from the bad decisions that they often seek to make.

Would you support a 12yo cis-girl to get a double-d breast implant because she has severe body image issues about her small breasts? Would you support an 11yo cis-boy taking steroids in order to increase muscle mass because he is emotionally devastated by being small and weak? Would you support a 13yo cis-person of any gender getting facial plastic surgery because they are traumatized by how they look?

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Look, I understand the position of sympathy and compassion from which you're coming. And it's a laudable emotional reaction to care deeply for the emotional well-being of another person. But we are the adults, it's our job to protect children from the bad decisions that they often seek to make.

Well, the cis children at least.

Would you support a 12yo cis-girl to get a double-d breast implant because she has severe body image issues about her small breasts? Would you support an 11yo cis-boy taking steroids in order to increase muscle mass because he is emotionally devastated by being small and weak? Would you support a 13yo cis-person of any gender getting facial plastic surgery because they are traumatized by how they look?

They wouldn't do breast augmentation on a twelve-year-old transgender girl either. An eleven-year-old boy taking steroids may be indicated depending on the severity of the condition and what quality of life looks like--I think it is a treatment for male hypogonadism in children, though I don't know the specific age it starts. Thirteen-year-olds do get facial reconstruction surgery for a number of conditions which can deeply impact their life and well being including recovery from injury or trauma, developmental issues like having a cleft palette etc. The last example is also weird. If hrt was started younger, the need for reconstructive surgeries should be significantly reduced.

These are all valid medical treatments for valid medical issues. HRT is a valid medical treatment for transgender youth. The issue is one of accurate diagnosis and assessment. A blanket policy of medical intervention or a lack of medical intervention alike will result in harm. That is a simple fact of the situation. It can't be wished away by hiding behind difficult consent issues all so that we don't tread on our fear of denying a kid the chance to live a 100% cis-normative life.

 

[repoman]

If there would be a lot of cases of girl who are not really trans and gets funneled into puberty blockers then testosterone and so on and they later have serious regrets...

Wouldn't a knock on effect be for people to be excessively worried and then err on the other side and not believe a real transgender female who desires to go FTM? Would these children be fearful that they too will have regret even if it is turns out to not be the case?

 

[Jarhyn]

If there would be a lot of cases of girl who are not really trans and gets funneled into puberty blockers then testosterone and so on and they later have serious regrets...

Wouldn't a knock on effect be for people to be excessively worried and then err on the other side and not believe a real transgender female who desires to go FTM? Would these children be fearful that they too will have regret even if it is turns out to not be the case?

God, Dear Ziprhead or Mumbles: built in "let me Google that for you" embedder.

Repoman, I will leave it up to you to google the instance per capita of young adults who transition who regret their choices.

Remember, there is a zero sum at play here: to satisfy either half you must apply equal amounts of corrective remediation and get equally unsatisfying results either way.

I'm pretty sure last I looked it up, the exact words "overwhelming majority" were used. So, depending on who that overwhelming majority are, and who would need surgical remediations as an overwhelming majority,I think that would decide it. You should look that up and let me know.

 

[seanie]

If they don't transition the puberty blockers have little effect--puberty resumes when they are discontinued. If they do transition they make it a lot easier. It seems to me a pretty obvious choice--when in doubt, use them.

The evidence presented in court on the safety, efficacy, and reversibility of puberty blockers (which was very limited), was mostly based on their use to treat precocious puberty: very young children with early onset puberty.

In those cases puberty blockers were used to delay puberty until the time children would normally go through puberty, then they'd be taken off the drugs, and puberty would progress as expected.

Administering the same drugs to stop puberty in children at the age they should be going through puberty is very different. Normal puberty is on a time clock: it should happen in a particular age range. Delaying puberty to fit that time window is one thing. Expecting puberty to proceed as normal after that time window is quite another.

The Court ruling made no decision about what was the most appropriate treatment, nor should it have done. But it was absolutely right to describe the use of puberty blockers as an experimental treatment, because at this moment in time they are. Separate evidence is required when a treatment is used in a different context.

 

[ZiprHead]

God, Dear Ziprhead or Mumbles: built in "let me Google that for you" embedder.

LOL, You'd have to take that up with RayJ.

 

[Jarhyn]

If they don't transition the puberty blockers have little effect--puberty resumes when they are discontinued. If they do transition they make it a lot easier. It seems to me a pretty obvious choice--when in doubt, use them.

The evidence presented in court on the safety, efficacy, and reversibility of puberty blockers (which was very limited), was mostly based on their use to treat precocious puberty: very young children with early onset puberty.

In those cases puberty blockers were used to delay puberty until the time children would normally go through puberty, then they'd be taken off the drugs, and puberty would progress as expected.

Administering the same drugs to stop puberty in children at the age they should be going through puberty is very different. Normal puberty is on a time clock: it should happen in a particular age range. Delaying puberty to fit that time window is one thing. Expecting puberty to proceed as normal after that time window is quite another.

The Court ruling made no decision about what was the most appropriate treatment, nor should it have done. But it was absolutely right to describe the use of puberty blockers as an experimental treatment, because at this moment in time they are. Separate evidence is required when a treatment is used in a different context.

Not experimental. And at any rate, it doesn't much matter since the hormones that will drive their puberty will be acquired by prescription.

No negative consequences of this delay have been yielded to date. Particularly not in that commentary.

There are many points of data around the globe: this works and the patients are pleased with the results.

At best this serves as a warning to get it figured out and lined up before the gonads take off, and not muck about with delaying HRT at all

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If they don't transition the puberty blockers have little effect--puberty resumes when they are discontinued. If they do transition they make it a lot easier. It seems to me a pretty obvious choice--when in doubt, use them.

The evidence presented in court on the safety, efficacy, and reversibility of puberty blockers (which was very limited), was mostly based on their use to treat precocious puberty: very young children with early onset puberty.

In those cases puberty blockers were used to delay puberty until the time children would normally go through puberty, then they'd be taken off the drugs, and puberty would progress as expected.

Administering the same drugs to stop puberty in children at the age they should be going through puberty is very different. Normal puberty is on a time clock: it should happen in a particular age range. Delaying puberty to fit that time window is one thing. Expecting puberty to proceed as normal after that time window is quite another.

The Court ruling made no decision about what was the most appropriate treatment, nor should it have done. But it was absolutely right to describe the use of puberty blockers as an experimental treatment, because at this moment in time they are. Separate evidence is required when a treatment is used in a different context.

Not experimental. And at any rate, it doesn't much matter since the hormones that will drive their puberty will be acquired by prescription.

No negative consequences of this delay have been yielded to date. Particularly not in that commentary.

There are many points of data around the globe: this works and the patients are pleased with the results.

At best this serves as a warning to get it figured out and lined up before the gonads take off, and not muck about with delaying HRT at all

I wouldn't say "no negative consequences". There are minor ones.

 

[Jarhyn]

Not experimental. And at any rate, it doesn't much matter since the hormones that will drive their puberty will be acquired by prescription.

No negative consequences of this delay have been yielded to date. Particularly not in that commentary.

There are many points of data around the globe: this works and the patients are pleased with the results.

At best this serves as a warning to get it figured out and lined up before the gonads take off, and not muck about with delaying HRT at all

I wouldn't say "no negative consequences". There are minor ones.

Alright. I relent. I can agree with this sentiment.

I assume we can agree that they are minor enough, in the faces of the consequences of not, that they are to be mitigated as best we canrather than wholely and neurotically avoided at the expense of tossing the baby with the bathwater?

 

[Emily Lake]

Look, I understand the position of sympathy and compassion from which you're coming. And it's a laudable emotional reaction to care deeply for the emotional well-being of another person. But we are the adults, it's our job to protect children from the bad decisions that they often seek to make.

Well, the cis children at least.

Would you support a 12yo cis-girl to get a double-d breast implant because she has severe body image issues about her small breasts? Would you support an 11yo cis-boy taking steroids in order to increase muscle mass because he is emotionally devastated by being small and weak? Would you support a 13yo cis-person of any gender getting facial plastic surgery because they are traumatized by how they look?

They wouldn't do breast augmentation on a twelve-year-old transgender girl either. An eleven-year-old boy taking steroids may be indicated depending on the severity of the condition and what quality of life looks like--I think it is a treatment for male hypogonadism in children, though I don't know the specific age it starts. Thirteen-year-olds do get facial reconstruction surgery for a number of conditions which can deeply impact their life and well being including recovery from injury or trauma, developmental issues like having a cleft palette etc. The last example is also weird. If hrt was started younger, the need for reconstructive surgeries should be significantly reduced.

These are all valid medical treatments for valid medical issues. HRT is a valid medical treatment for transgender youth. The issue is one of accurate diagnosis and assessment. A blanket policy of medical intervention or a lack of medical intervention alike will result in harm. That is a simple fact of the situation. It can't be wished away by hiding behind difficult consent issues all so that we don't tread on our fear of denying a kid the chance to live a 100% cis-normative life.

The cases you provide as justifiable reasons for medical intervention are cases of fixing something that is actually wrong. Steroids might be given if the child is not developing normally. Reconstructive surgery might be provided to correct injury, trauma, or malformations.

That's not analogous to puberty blockers and/or cross sex hormones being given to children who are developing normally and have no physical problems.

Perhaps lets try again? Would you support giving steroids to an 11 yo boy who has nothing wrong with his development, but who is severely self-conscious about his lack of muscle mass? Would you support facial cosmetic surgery for a 13 yo who has no injuries or malformations but has low self-esteem because she hates how she looks?

 

[Emily Lake]

Remember, there is a zero sum at play here: to satisfy either half you must apply equal amounts of corrective remediation and get equally unsatisfying results either way.

Um, no. This is NOT "zero-sum". ALL of the children who receive puberty blockers face long-term problems, including emotional and psychological delays.

I swear, this is like the opposite of a LWOP argument. If we were talking about the death penalty right now, your argument is the one analogous to "Use the death penalty more, it doesn't matter if several of the executed people end up being innocent of the crime they were charged with, that's a price I'm willing to pay in order to get the really bad guys gone".

 

[Jarhyn]

Remember, there is a zero sum at play here: to satisfy either half you must apply equal amounts of corrective remediation and get equally unsatisfying results either way.

Um, no. This is NOT "zero-sum". ALL of the children who receive puberty blockers face long-term problems, including emotional and psychological delays.

I swear, this is like the opposite of a LWOP argument. If we were talking about the death penalty right now, your argument is the one analogous to "Use the death penalty more, it doesn't matter if several of the executed people end up being innocent of the crime they were charged with, that's a price I'm willing to pay in order to get the really bad guys gone".

So, you claim emotional and psychological delays. Evidence please? As has been discussed previously offered opinions are inconclusive at best and are offered only for a situation that is not even remotely similar to the context under discussion.

And yes, it is zero sum for all meaningful intents, because the consequences you offer are inconsequential and pale in comparison to the actual things being discussed: surgery.

Because if 100 kids claim trans ideation, and we look at their "destinies", we can pretty well expect about 95-98% of them to actually be trans, creating a fixed pie of outcomes.

This creates 2 outcomes in the "dumbest" formulations of policy (everyone gets blockers for asking; nobody gets blockers for asking), with some graduations resulting in whether filtration efforts are made.

So in this most naive simple no-filter dichotomy, we end up with either 95% of these kids needing surgical correction, or with 5% needing surgical re-correction.

Additionally, for those children forced to undergo an opposed puberty, there are the additional social developmental hurdles of being unable to directly or cleanly access the social groups one is trying to acclimatize to, and being further from the physiological states one needs exposure to to cope with their adult hormones in general.

There are analogical incompatibilities, further, in your formulation. People don't want to die. They DO want to go through the puberty that fits "who they really are". The unilateral imposition against right does not analogically consummate with a unilateral right against imposition.

More "if we let women vote, some will vote against their interests, merely a second vote of their husband, so we can't let any women vote at all!"

I'm willing to accept the consequences, however unlikely if I am wrong, to have the benefits I gain in the likely outcome that I am right. This is standard risk calculus.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Well, the cis children at least.



They wouldn't do breast augmentation on a twelve-year-old transgender girl either. An eleven-year-old boy taking steroids may be indicated depending on the severity of the condition and what quality of life looks like--I think it is a treatment for male hypogonadism in children, though I don't know the specific age it starts. Thirteen-year-olds do get facial reconstruction surgery for a number of conditions which can deeply impact their life and well being including recovery from injury or trauma, developmental issues like having a cleft palette etc. The last example is also weird. If hrt was started younger, the need for reconstructive surgeries should be significantly reduced.

These are all valid medical treatments for valid medical issues. HRT is a valid medical treatment for transgender youth. The issue is one of accurate diagnosis and assessment. A blanket policy of medical intervention or a lack of medical intervention alike will result in harm. That is a simple fact of the situation. It can't be wished away by hiding behind difficult consent issues all so that we don't tread on our fear of denying a kid the chance to live a 100% cis-normative life.

The cases you provide as justifiable reasons for medical intervention are cases of fixing something that is actually wrong.

You're making an artificial distinction. The treatments are based on the condition. What you are essentially saying is either gender dysphoria is not a legitimate condition or transition is not a legitimate treatment. Either that or suffering for gender dysphoric youth doesn't count for jack shit.

Perhaps lets try again? Would you support giving steroids to an 11 yo boy who has nothing wrong with his development, but who is severely self-conscious about his lack of muscle mass? Would you support facial cosmetic surgery for a 13 yo who has no injuries or malformations but has low self-esteem because she hates how she looks?

Now THAT is not analogous to treating gender dysphoria. Frankly, it's a fucked up comparison. Transition isn't a treatment for low self-esteem. Furthermore, delaying either of the treatments you've mentioned isn't analogous to delaying medical intervention for transgender youth. The fact of the matter is, doctors provide treatment based on the condition. Hormone therapy and plastic surgeries are provided to children for various reasons not all of which are to treat dire or debilitating conditions, but rather some just to improve quality of life and a sense of normalcy.

 

[Emily Lake]

Alright. I relent. I can agree with this sentiment.

I assume we can agree that they are minor enough, in the faces of the consequences of not, that they are to be mitigated as best we canrather than wholely and neurotically avoided at the expense of tossing the baby with the bathwater?

You know you're not saving the baby from the bathwater here, right? You're imposing long term, not well studied consequences - including bone density issues, impacts to fertility, etc. - on a subset of children who would not otherwise have ANY effects, because their temporary (and fairly natural) gender discomfort would alleviate when they go through natural puberty, and they would likely be homosexual rather than transgender.

Wouldn't you think that coming to terms with being gay or lesbian, and NOT being permanently dependent on medical intervention, and NOT having long-term side effects from delayed puberty would be preferable? What do you have against homosexuality?

 

[Emily Lake]

I'm willing to accept the consequences, however unlikely if I am wrong, to have the benefits I gain in the likely outcome that I am right. This is standard risk calculus.

Well, I suppose it's nice of you to be comfortable putting other people at risk. That's all that matters, right?

With respect to side effects... Go look into the effects of puberty that doesn't trigger naturally and ends up delayed. This isn't a mystery. It's not a side effect of the blockers, it's a side effect of puberty not occurring when it's supposed to. Permanently damaged bone density because growth plates don't close and bones don't increase density when they're supposed to. Delays in emotional and cognitive maturity. Increased risk of infertility. Increased anxiety, isolation, and depression. These are all side effects of puberty not occurring in its natural time.

In terms of persistence... this one gets iffy. If you look at rates when the ONLY treatment is affirmative of gender dysphoria, yes, you see about 90% of kids who go on blockers persist to cross sex hormones. If you look at countries and studies that do NOT prescribe blockers to every child that comes in uncomfortable with their gender, you see 80% of them grow out of that discomfort when they undergo a natural puberty. There's a strong suggestion that blocking puberty reinforces gender discomfort that would otherwise have alleviated on its own and left the child happy in their natal sex and not dependent on medical intervention for the rest of their lives. By blocking that puberty from occurring, you are in fact preventing the child from coming to terms with their sex as it is.

Of course, I don't expect you to give this any real consideration. You're already convinced that blockers are perfectly safe and reversible, and that this is the absolute best approach with no care whatsoever for the kids getting wrong diagnoses. I'm willing to bet that you also disregard and dismiss the people who desist after having gone through cross sex hormones, who in their twenties come back and say the doctors were wrong and they were never transgender in the first place... but hey - now they've permanently fucked up their bodies. No biggie. At least a few of those are genuinely trans and that's all that matters, right?

 

[Emily Lake]

You're making an artificial distinction. The treatments are based on the condition. What you are essentially saying is either gender dysphoria is not a legitimate condition or transition is not a legitimate treatment. Either that or suffering for gender dysphoric youth doesn't count for jack shit.

Not true. Doctors are being negligent and irresponsible and falsely diagnosing gender dysphoria in children who would become comfortable with their natal sex if allowed to go through a natural puberty. The diagnostic criteria being used for gender dysphoria in children is lax and isn't being responsibly used. The average amount of time spent in evaluation is around 3 hours for kids, and is largely based on those kids not feeling a synergy with traditional, culturally reinforced gender roles. The only treatment being supported at the moment is "affirmation" which means that when kid says they're trans, the doctor immediately accepts it as true without challenge and affirms that kid's belief. Even if it is incorrect and they are 1) autistic, 2) homosexual, 3) suffering from childhood abuse or trauma often of a sexual nature, 4) a normal girl going through normal female dislike of their body and discomfort with how people's behavior toward them changes as they mature.

It's worth noting that the same coalitions pushing for puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for children are the same coalitions pushing for self-id alone. These are people who strongly believe that no diagnosis at all should be required, and that if a person believes they are the "wrong" sex, they are right no matter what. They have no interest in performing a rigorous and responsible diagnosis. They already believe that there should be no requirement for diagnosis.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I do not have a blanket objection to hormone blockers and cross-sex hormones for children across the board. There are undoubtedly some children who have had persistent gender dysphoria from a very young age, and who have consistently identified as a non-matched gender from toddlerhood. For those children, it makes sense to provide interventionary treatment, and I support that.

But that's not what is going on right now.