They/Them She/Her He/Him - as you will

[Jarhyn]

Nobody claimed it is, and that has nothing to do with hormone replacement. You are thinking of genital reassignment, which is not done for kids.

Yes, genital 'reassignment' is done on kids, as are mastectomies. That you are ignorant of this while championing medical transition is disturbing but not surprising.

Nobody here is endorsing that. That you are ignorant of this means that you are not even reading your own thread. Disturbing but not surprising.

I often remind you of this but you keep forgetting, and trying to act like this is ever a thing I have endorsed. Please stop that; it would be exceedingly dishonest to make that mistake again.

It is exceedingly dishonest of you to say I made implications about your position that I did not.

I implied you endorse halting puberty and giving children wrong-sex hormones. I am, of course, correct about that. Indeed, you not only endorse it, but in my opinion, seem almost religiously excited by the idea.

I am indeed excited at the idea that people like myself, like Sigma, like my husband, or a number of my friends, like my ex wife, like KIS, will be able to grow up without draconian assholes forcing them to let their body develop in ways they would see it not, that nobody is forced further from the life they seek to lead.

We come to a conflict insofar as I see "wrong sex hormones" as "whichever hormones the one being forced to take them considers 'wrong'".

You're forcing your religious view of what is right and wrong on people now, children no less.

 

[Metaphor]

Nobody here is endorsing that. That you are ignorant of this means that you are not even reading your own thread. Disturbing but not surprising.

I did not accuse anybody in particular of endorsing childhood genital "reassignment". That you continue to insist that I did is disturbing but not surprising.

I am indeed excited at the idea that people like myself, like Sigma, like my husband, or a number of my friends, like my ex wife, like KIS, will be able to grow up without draconian assholes forcing them to let their body develop in ways they would see it not, that nobody is forced further from the life they seek to lead.

The people who want to stop medical experimentation on children are not the ones forcing anything on anyone.

We come to a conflict insofar as I see "wrong sex hormones" as "whichever hormones the one being forced to take them considers 'wrong'".

Of course we are at a conflict because you do not live in reality. Female hormones are wrong-sex hormones for males, and male hormones are wrong-sex hormones for females. Sex is a reality.

You're forcing your religious view of what is right and wrong on people now, children no less.

Refraining from pumping children with puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones is not a religious act.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

I say, let's follow the advice of the American Academy of Pediatrics!

I'm not big on accepting authority. An authority might agree with me, that's great when it happens. But it's not an argument or evidence beyond somebody's opinion.
Tom

I was not aware that you were anti-science. The official statements of the American Academy of Pediatrics constitite the united opinion of one of the most respected pediatric organizations in the world, and their statements are based on peer reviewed research that must be vetted by the editors of the most high impact peer-reviewed journals in the world.

Since you are anti-science, though, that must not mean very much to you.

View attachment 36426

There are experts, and then there are experts.

No single option, no matter how expert, a scientific consensus makes.

I think you might have misinterpreted me, or I was not entirely clear. For one thing, I was not discussing genetics or semantics, but I was discussing the practical clinical care given to transgender children by actual pediatricians. The AAP is actually an appropriate authority for advice on pediatric care of any type. Another pediatric organization would be an appropriate authority from which to seek an alternate opinion, but I am not aware of any.

Furthermore, I have not claimed to know very much at all about intersex people whatsoever. In fact, as a transgender woman, I am really astonishingly ignorant regarding intersex people. I know nothing about them or their particular sensitivities. In fact, I am just as likely as anybody else, if not more so, to accidentally offend one of them. My few experiences with them did, however, give me an insight as to how other people might react to me if I became overzealous about my pronoun enforcement. In fact, that is why I tell people, "I prefer she/her, but if you make mistakes from time to time, I won't hold it against you or even really dislike you. I do not seek perfect compliance, merely a general understanding that masculine pronouns do not really reflect how I see myself." I decided that this would be how I spoke after I got flamed for trying to tell an intersex person, "I am very sorry to have offended you, but I only used the word 'hermaphrodite' because I find the word to be very charming. I was not aware that you did not appreciate it. It might take me a long time to adjust to this because I have habitually used the term, in my own niche communities, ever since 1997, and it is very hard to change a two decade old habit, but I promise that I will try." I realized then that I had asked someone's standing pardon for a social error that they found to be profoundly offensive, and I could not find in myself the nerve to refuse the same sort of pardon to others if I had previously asked for it from somebody else.

Regardless, you would not look for the opinion of a geneticist on how to provide practical clinical care for a transgender CHILD, but you would ask a large, well-vetted pediatric organization that has actively attempted to find a good policy.

Ensuring Comprehensive Care and Support for Transgender and Gender-Diverse Children and Adolescents

As a traditionally underserved population that faces numerous health disparities, youth who identify as transgender and gender diverse (TGD) and their families are increasingly presenting to pediatric providers for education, care, and referrals. The need for more formal training, standardized...

publications.aap.org

There is their official POLICY STATEMENT. That is not just a single study by a single researcher, but it is the policy that the entire organization has gotten behind, united, as their consensus on how to properly provide suitable care to transgender children.

I was answering the fanatical accusations, by our resident <Snip> that is tolerated for reasons that I cannot understand except <snip>, that I am motivated by a "gender cult" in the formation of my views on pediatric care. I honestly am unbelievably ignorant about pediatric care and know almost nothing about children except that, theoretically, I used to be one. I have blocked most of my memories of it, though. Therefore, I do not have a personal opinion on the pediatric care of transgender people, but I do believe that it is advisable to seek out an appropriate authority on the subject if one actually is attempting to raise a transgender child. The official policy statement of the AAP constitutes the strongest type of scientific authority because it represents the consensus of several scientists from robustly interdisciplinary backgrounds, not just one.

An appropriate counter-argument would have to be based on the opinions of another pediatric organization, but even that would not make it less valid to argue that a pediatrician that had followed the AAP's advice had done due diligence to seek valid advice on how to proceed in the care of a transgender child, especially if their practice is directly associated with the AAP.

That was all that I meant.

Mayo clinic also has a very strong stance on the care for transgender children. They are one of the most well respected medical organizations in the world.

If you want to see Metaphor's other hobby horse wake up and go zombie walking across the forum for two weeks though, bring up FGM. I mean, please don't, it's your right but seriously, it's not a great idea. It will be hijacked in two seconds by people complaining (and rightly so) about all genital mutations and "what about men?"

Now, I'm mostly of the opinion that the only person who decides how their genitals may be modified, outside of lifesaving or otherwise organ-saving interventions, is the owner of them.

Metaphor tried so hard to frame a decision made by an individual as adults forcing things on them with regards to genital reassignment surgeries.

You know what was forced on a lot of trans girls by adults who could have done otherwise? Male puberties.

Trans-boys being forced through female puberty tend to have worse issues, to be honest. They can become seriously injured by using inappropriate methods of chest-binding. Their rate of attempted suicide is considerably higher.

 

[Jarhyn]

Nobody here is endorsing that. That you are ignorant of this means that you are not even reading your own thread. Disturbing but not surprising.

I did not accuse anybody in particular of endorsing childhood genital "reassignment". That you continue to insist that I did is disturbing but not surprising.

You used it in a direct reply to something I said. If it is not in reply to what I said, then do not include it in replies to what I say as a reply to what I say.

I am indeed excited at the idea that people like myself, like Sigma, like my husband, or a number of my friends, like my ex wife, like KIS, will be able to grow up without draconian assholes forcing them to let their body develop in ways they would see it not, that nobody is forced further from the life they seek to lead.

The people who want to stop medical experimentation on children are not the ones forcing anything on anyone.

good thing nobody is endorsing medical experimentation on children. The science is quite well understood.

We come to a conflict insofar as I see "wrong sex hormones" as "whichever hormones the one being forced to take them considers 'wrong'".

Of course we are at a conflict because you do not live in reality. Female hormones are wrong-sex hormones for males, and male hormones are wrong-sex hormones for females. Sex is a reality.

Then you should have no issues holding up evidence for this claim.

I will hold you to also providing evidence for the begged question in the middle that they are in some real way "wrong" and not merely "normally unavailable".

You're forcing your religious view of what is right and wrong on people now, children no less.

Refraining from pumping children with puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones is not a religious act.

No, it isn't. Standing between children and their power to pump themselves full of puberty blockers and as adults standing between them and the hormones they seek, that's pretty religious.

It's the religious believe that they ought not because of what I have pointed out are very bad arguments.

 

[bilby]

Point of information:

There are no hormones in humans that are not present in both male and female humans.

Ovaries and testes both produce testosterone, with ovaries typically producing between 5 and 10 percent of the amount produced by testes. Progesterone is also produced in the testes, and is an essential precursor for testosterone production.

Adult men typically have a similar oestrogen level to that of non-ovulating adult women.

The differences between sexual development of men and women are due to the differing ratios of these hormones, not their presence or absence.

Thank you for your attention. I now return you to your scheduled flame-war.

 

[Metaphor]

You used it in a direct reply to something I said. If it is not in reply to what I said, then do not include it in replies to what I say as a reply to what I say.

I was explaining the loss of sexual function involved in medically transing children. Now, as part of the suite of policies you endorse, it makes genital "reassignment" surgery.

good thing nobody is endorsing medical experimentation on children. The science is quite well understood.

So the loss of sexual function is acknowledged and intended.

Then you should have no issues holding up evidence for this claim.

I will hold you to also providing evidence for the begged question in the middle that they are in some real way "wrong" and not merely "normally unavailable".

It's quite simple. One of the differences between the sexes is the amount and type of sex-based hormones circulating in their bodies. Trans-women take testosterone blockers because testosterone is the male hormone.

No, it isn't. Standing between children and their power to pump themselves full of puberty blockers and as adults standing between them and the hormones they seek, that's pretty religious.

It's the religious believe that they ought not because of what I have pointed out are very bad arguments.

Children have no such power. Immoral adults have the power. And when the number of detransitioned people reach critical mass, there will be a reckoning.

 

[Jarhyn]

You used it in a direct reply to something I said. If it is not in reply to what I said, then do not include it in replies to what I say as a reply to what I say.

I was explaining the loss of sexual function involved in medically transing children.

No, you were claiming it. "Explaining" requires evidence, models, information, not just smoke blown out your ass in the general direction of mine so as to not even manage to get any of the smoke in.

Now, as part of the suite of policies you endorse, it makes genital "reassignment" surgery.

I endorse body reassignment surgeries.

I'd totally take turns with my husband between our bodies, to be sure.

I hope to pioneer the technology to make that possible!

So of course I endorse genitals reassignment surgery.

I'm sure if someone offered people dissatisfied with the fact they were altered from factory form, such as say circumcision, they would take the opportunity to get that repaired. Maybe that involves regrowing some skin.

Only instead of being altered by a doctor, they are assembled by a piece of chemical machinery in a way that does not match their permanently installed driver package. Oops, came out different.

Life does that a lot. .5-3% of the population is a lot.

What do you propose, just leaving people to suffer knowingly as an entity that is denied something that it is shaped to be reliant on?

good thing nobody is endorsing medical experimentation on children. The science is quite well understood.

So the loss of sexual function is acknowledged and intended.

Then you should have no issues holding up evidence for this claim.

I will hold you to also providing evidence for the begged question in the middle that they are in some real way "wrong" and not merely "normally unavailable".

It's quite simple. One of the differences between the sexes is the amount and type of sex-based hormones circulating in their bodies. Trans-women take testosterone blockers because testosterone is the male hormone.

You only managed to defend "merely normally available" here.

You have not justified that it is in some way "right".

You have held up differences, an "is". You need to get to "ought". Otherwise you are invoking the naturalistic fallacy.

No, it isn't. Standing between children and their power to pump themselves full of puberty blockers and as adults standing between them and the hormones they seek, that's pretty religious.

It's the religious believe that they ought not because of what I have pointed out are very bad arguments.

Children have no such power. Immoral adults have the power. And when the number of detransitioned people reach critical mass, there will be a reckoning.

Children absolutely have the power to pump themselves full of hormones. The problem is that some seek choice, clearly and of their volition, to pump themselves with the hormones other kids are being allowed to pump themselves full of, instead of the one they are about to be subjected to. They want the power to choose. An underwhelming minority seek this right to choose, and pass through a very long road to get to make that choice, and in the mean time get to delay.

There will never be a critical mass of detransitioned people near the mass of satisfied transitioners because people are overwhelmingly satisfied with it!

The reckoning is in your head and fantasies.

 

[Metaphor]

What do you propose, just leaving people to suffer knowingly as an entity that is denied something that it is shaped to be reliant on?

I propose the genitals of children are not mutilated. It's really quite easy. What you do is: you refrain from mutilating them.

Adults can seek whatever genital "reassignment" surgery they want. All the results will be unsatisfactory but as long as surgeons do not mislead them, it's no skin off my nose.

Children absolutely have the power to pump themselves full of hormones. The problem is that some seek choice, clearly and of their volition, to pump themselves with the hormones other kids are being allowed to pump themselves full of, instead of the one they are about to be subjected to.

Ludicrous. Puberty is not pumping yourself full of hormones.

There will never be a critical mass of detransitioned people near the mass of satisfied transitioners because people are overwhelmingly satisfied with it!

The reckoning is in your head and fantasies.

There could never be a critical mass for you, because it is outside your narrative.

 

[Jarhyn]

Puberty is not pumping yourself full of hormone

...



...

So where are the hormones coming from, then, sky faeries?

 

[Emily Lake]

But you know what gay men never demanded of straight people? We never demanded that you look at us and call us 'straight'.

Lindsay Graham would like a word.

Also, many of folks do rightly demand that people not call them gay in public.

The consequences of being outed for not being straight can be deadly.

The same goes for not being "cis".

There's a fairly important difference between prohibiting a thing and compelling a thing. They aren't synonymous. Prohibiting certain language is substantially different from compelling certain language.

Just consider the intersection of church and state. The state prohibiting a prayer from being said during a public process is worlds apart from the state compelling that everyone say a prayer during a public process.

 

[Emily Lake]

Letting people do to their own body as adults

Do you believe that parents should be REQUIRED to allow their 13 year old children to get full-face tattoos if those children wish to do so?

, and letting people engage in hormonal realities that we do not deny others;

This is nonsense. We neither deny nor allow the reality of puberty to occur. That's not in our control. It's a natural process, and it is intermingled with several other biological processes that occur at the same time. What you're actually asking for is that parents be REQUIRED to provide their children with exogenous drugs that artificially derail their natural maturity in a way that does harm to them long term.

Let's try an alternative approach. If a male child very strongly desired to be extremely masculine, and wanted to take extra testosterone during puberty, do you think parents should be compelled to provide that additional testosterone? If a female child strongly desired to be extremely feminine, do you think parents should be compelled to provide additional estrogen?

and not playing some facile game where we pretend that everyone can or should reproduce or that not reproducing means not having a meaningful experience as a parent?

This is what you have a problem with?

Evil sentiments, indeed.

Honestly, I find it baffling that you think it's perfectly acceptable to sterilize a child - even though a fair number of detransitioners already exist.

 

[Emily Lake]

It is a crime for people to notice black people "are different" (they are not in any meaningful way) and to treat them differently for it in particular contexts, and always a violation of social decorum otherwise, and a very good reason to be ejected with great prejudice from any private place of civility.

Um, okay, but there are also many contexts in which it is both acceptable and necessary to notice that black people are different and to treat them differently.

For instance, when it comes to medicine, there are some drugs that work better in people of predominantly european descent, and others that work better in people of predominantly african descent. There are some illnesses and diseases that are found within people of african descent far more commonly than people of european descent. It would be idiotic to demand that a doctor or a nurse pretend that black people and white people have the same risk profile for sickle cell anemia or for lactose intolerance.

Similarly, it would be downright dumb to force people to pretend that there's no difference between black people's hair and white people's hair. Different products and different treatments are reasonable and appropriate.

No matter how much you might wish to believe otherwise, males and females are FAR more different from each other than a black man and a white man are. And there are many, many situations in which it would be dangerous, unethical, and damaging to force people to pretend that no difference exists. It's not an even level of risk either - that pretense results in danger being faced largely by females, and has virtually no impact on males.

So... you are essentially arguing that doctors must be forced to pretend that black men are exactly the same as white men, even though that results in inappropriate care for black men and poorer health outcomes. Does that actually make sense to you?

 

[Emily Lake]

I'm the most vocal trans activist on this thread.

Yes, you are. Far more vocal and dogmatic than the actual transgender members of this forum are. I have notices that in many cases in the past decade, the "activist allies" are for more zealous and authoritarian than the people they claim to be acting on behalf of.

I am the disproof of your claim.

Your claim was disproved in the post you were arguing against with that claim!

You saying "nuh-uh" and engaging in ad hominems and fallacious argument does not constitute a disproof.

It means you are willing to publicly declare private and unimportant information when you fail to use neutral pronouns while under belief that the pronoun being requested is misplaced. That you have expressed a willingness to out people.

And herein lies that problem: It is NOT private information. Humans above the age of about 6 are about 98% accurate at sexing adult humans on the basis of faces alone, even absent any fashion indicators like hair style, make-up, and clothing. The natural faces of adult humans display our sex to everyone around us. Our natural bodies do so even more strongly.

 

[Emily Lake]

It is a violation of someone's privacy to assume their history, past, culture, just by looking at the shape of their eyes or the color of their skin, and then say such things as you assume.

It is beyond inane to insist that people pretend that epicanthic folds do NOT indicate asian ancestry. It is completely irrational to pretend that visually obvious elements of a person are somehow magically unknown.

Seriously, you seem to be arguing that these meat-sacks we walk around in are a completely arbitrary and separate costume that is divorced from our "real selves"... where that "real self" seems to be a code word for "souls".

 

[Emily Lake]

Now you answer the same question with trans people the subject.

Why would I need to call transgender identified males anything other than males? Solely and exclusively for the purpose of courtesy.

It is certainly NOT the case that a transman is actually a man. A transman is a transgender identified female who wishes to live life in as close an approximation of a human male as can be done.

 

[Emily Lake]

You said no gay men want to be called straight. Obviously this is wrong because there are plenty of gay men that are not out and want to be thought of as straight.

Noooo.... not exactly. They don't want people to know that they are actually gay. It's not the same as demanding that people who know for a fact that they are gay pretend that they are straight.

If a transman doesn't want people to know that they are actually female, well, that's fine, but it's on them to convincingly pass as male. If a transman has double-D boobs, a tiny waist, broad hips, round eye sockets, s mall hands, and a female gait... their desire for people to not know they are actually female is going to be really hard to pull off. People will look at them and will see a female human being, and will perceive them as a woman regardless of whether they want other people to know that or not.

If a gay man is constantly talking about the great butt sex they've been having with Henry the Bear... it's hardly rational for them to insist that people don't "out" them as gay, and everyone pretend they are straight.

 

[Emily Lake]

But someone's need to define people by what they percieve as birth anatomy trumps safety concerns.

Well, unless it's women we're talking about. And then of course, the fact that those female prisoners perceive the bepenised individual as male means fuck-all for the safety of those women. Those women's safety doesn't matter nearly as much as the feelings of the male-bodied person with a penis that wants to be housed with females.

 

[Emily Lake]

Most people most of the time should not make an observation so "obvious" as "race", in public or even to themselves if possible.

This is ridiculous. It is laughably ridiculous. I observe that I am fucking white, and that my sister is fucking mixed and that my dad is fucking black. My best friend is a fucking redhead. Her spouse is fucking hispanic. I observe that my dad is of average height for a male, and that my mom is of below average height for a female. My neighbor is obviously, blatantly, clearly of Indian descent.

Why on earth would you think it's appropriate or even plausible that people lie to themselves and pretend that what is visually obvious is magically unknown? It's asinine.

 

[Emily Lake]

Most people most of the time should not make an observation so "obvious" as "race", in public or even to themselves if possible.

Just because SOME people can SOMETIMES tell about SOME people merely by looking at them does not justify telling of the thing.

Seriously, it's not OK for kids to point out someone's pissed pants

We are talking explicitly about a population that is ambiguous, and for whom the better they pass, often, the safer they are.

You know, I can imagine a playground with a bunch of kids. There one who has peed their pants, and a bunch of other kids. The one with the pissy drawers is attempting to get away.

Now, I can imagine two very illuminating reactions: the kid who points at the obvious and says "hey, that kid pissed their pants!" And the kid who notices and instead walks out to the front and side of the kid so that nobody can see what happened and can thus escape.

These are two very different reactions to an obvious piece of true information seen. One will result in shame and trauma and the other in a friendship and no trauma, though perhaps still a little shame.

Notice that in your example, even the "nice" kid does actually notice and is aware that the other kid has experienced a bladder accident. They have most definitely made the observation of reality, and have acknowledged it as reality. The nice kid helping to shelter another from shame is certainly not unaware of the pee, nor are they pretending that the kid didn't pee themself. The only way for them to even lend support is literally to observe and take action on that observation of pee covered pants.

 

[Emily Lake]

Yes, observing that someone was born "male" by whatever standard you wish to use at the moment may be tantamount to pointing at them and proclaiming before all and sundry that they have pissy pants.

I'm sorry, but Alex Drummond and Laurel Hubbard and Lia Thomas and Rachel Mckinnon and Andrea Long Chu and Eddie Izzard are all male. They are OBSERVABLY male. Nobody needs to point anything out at all.

You are not asking that we be nice to the kid who peed their pants; you're insisting that nobody could even possibly be aware that they peed their pants, and that if we notice wetness on their pants, we should all assume that it's in our imagination and the pants are actually dry.