The specific claims of surgeries being performed at the specific hospital, most relevantly, which was the specific thing that motivated the bomb threats.
> It's well-documented that children are being subjected to 'gender-affirming' drugs and surgeries.
Its well-documented that a small numbet of children with identified needs are prescribed puberty blockers, and that this is extremely significant in reducing suicide rates; its well documented that even smaller number of teens get hormone treatments to promote puberty of the gender of identity, and that a positively miniscule number of teens get (mostly) top or mor rarely) bottom surgery, as well.
> We'll likely look back on this as a huge medical scandal, just as we do for the frontal lobotomy craze.
It’s more likely that we’ll look at the drive promoted largely on the basis of religious conservatism to impose ascribed gender over gender identity and deny such care, with clear evidence that doing so is killing people, as a medical scandal, similar to all the other times care was denied or known harmful interventions were applied systematically to a targeted marginalized community.
>> and well-meaning attempts at gender reassignment surgery for them will backfire
> The only thing kids can go on are puberty blockers.
So instead of specifying gender reassignment surgery, they should have something more broad, like well-meaning medical interventions. It seems like the heart of their statement is true and that these medical interventions on children can backfire.
Why would someone want to develop gender dysphoria? It is associated with a significantly heightened risk for multiple mental illnesses and suicide.
It would make sense that someone would want to get rid of gender dysphoria, not the other way around.
>>I've been forced to not transition, and it was utter hell.
How were you forced to not transition? Did someone threaten to punish you in the event that you made an attempt to? Or was it just a matter of the procedure not being available to you?
Anyway, would it be hell to not transition, if you didn't have gender dysphoria?
>>Development of such a treatment would be immediately followed by it being forced on people.
This is speculation, and your speculation on how such a treatment would be used doesn't create a moral justification to exert totalitarian force on others to prevent them from developing the treatment.
> Children cannot get irreversible surgery in the US. They may be given puberty blockers, which are completely reversible
You say this, but it’s not supported by longitudinal studies.
In any case, the change in their development is not reversible. You can’t send them back in time to have those years again.
> and only until they're adults and able to make a decision for themselves.
Ok - so the decision to medically alter the course of their development is made for them, at a time when you admit they are not able to decide for themselves.
> And none of this happens without the consent of a board-certified physician who is under oath (and the threat of lawsuit and/or losing malpractice insurance) not to do anything to harm the patient.
Which is increasingly happening in other countries.
And why does a doctor get to make this decision without the parents?
> Why are doctors deciding that minors with healthy genitalia need to have them surgically altered?
> Also, wait until you hear about circumcision. You're going to be really outraged at the surgical alteration of minors with healthy genitalia then!
I am in fact outraged at the practice of circumcision. Aren’t you?
> It’s also pretty insulting to throw the word tweens in there, implying that transgender issues are just a tween phase.
They didn't imply that at all, the problem is that we are performing life changing cosmetic surgery on people not mature enough to consent. The other issue is that it doesn't really treat the disorder, it transforms the body to match the mind, all other psychiatry tries to get the mind to adapt to it's environment, it's a failure of psychiatry.
> The study you are citing appears to have been commissioned by the National Center for Transgender Equality
Wrong. It was funded by a grant from the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute, which has no affiliation with any transgender activists. https://www.pcori.org/about/about-pcori
Forgive me for being extremely suspicious of your ability to evaluate evidence to come to rational conclusions.
Your study compares sex-reassigned people to the general population, not those who had surgery against those who wanted surgery but didn't get it. It is cited multiple times with a correct interpretation by the paper I gave you. The author herself points out you're using it wrong. https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/6q3e8v/science_ama...
> that's not what they were intending and you know it
Yes, I took the more charitable interpretation of what they said (that it was specifically about minors) and devoted the vast majority of my comment to talking about that. I spent maybe one or two paragraphs total talking about adult transitioning.
And yet, even under that charitable interpretation, saying "we should not be operating on healthy tissue" is an argument that sounds good but falls apart as soon as you try applying it to the real world and the numerous non-essential medical interventions that are supplied to children.
I am trying to be charitable in my takes, but "chopping off their reproductive organs because of a fad" is not an insightful characterization of the current debate. It grossly oversimplifies the full spectrum of medical intervention for transgender youth, and (again) ignores the reality that medical interventions for psychological/social/internal maladies, including interventions based on the possibility of future psychological/social problems, are not exclusive to transgender youth.
> > Many people against gender theory are former 'tomboys' that are healthy adults, don't conform to gender stereotypes, and are glad that breast binding, hormones and cosmetic surgery weren't foisted on them as children.
> What do you mean by "healthy adults"?
By healthy adults I mean they don't feel any need to conform to gender stereotypes, and are glad that breast binding, hormones and cosmetic surgery weren't foisted on them as children.
Edit reply due to rate limit: yes I edited because I realised I’d already written this in the comment you were replying to, you just hadn’t bothered to read the comment before replying. I wanted to highlight how foolish you were. I hope you understand now.
And yes mutilating one’s body is harming it, I have no qualms in telling you this in a very direct non-quiet fashion. Stop encouraging people to wreck their bodies.
> If you allude that it's problematic to let children change sex, you are painted as anti lgbtixxxx.
I think you well know the debate is not that simple. Certainly there are well-meaning people against procedures to change gender for kids, but i’m not sure it’s an exaggeration to say the majority are transphobic or bigoted.
What’s the problem with just leaving it for families and healthcare providers to decide for themselves?
Being intersex is very rare and unfortunate, and I am sympathetic to those with such birth defects.
However, the explosion in "trans kids" has nothing to do with being intersex and has everything to do with being a mental craze. There is no explanation for feelings of "gender dysphoria" rising by 1000% among young girls except for it being a mental craze, with all the encouragement and support among themselves, in social media, and among the school administrators. [1]
> but why are we talking about a lot of kids doing this then
Because you've been lied to. You've been duped by hate groups, and now you're happily spreading their disinfo.
> Also: is there any indication that this is (in the sense that people need transition or otherwise kill themselves) is a problem in other societies than ours (or just with a bunch of apes). Because I still think that we should maybe change our society before we do hardly reversible things to people to make them fit in (very unpopular and quite influenced by conservative christianity (though I'm not affiliated))
It's not a problem in other cultures because other cultures just let people transition. Without transition we do see increased rates of distress, including higher rates of attempted suicide and deaths by suicide.
> You are aware of the existence of physically intersex, hermaphroditic, and androgynous humans?
An extreme minority and biological oddity. I can empathize with those people, but let’s not pretend that’s who we’re talking about.
We are discussing biological males/females undergoing extensive mutilation. Have you ever SEEN a FtM “penis”? The cut leg/arm flesh sown together and attached to the groin looks like something out of nazi germany medical experiments, not modern “health care”. It is vile on a deep, existential level.
Also no where did I suggest that this is a uniquely western problem.
I also reject your fear-framing. I’m not “afraid” of anything, I’m disgusted by this affront to truth, logic, and reason. Trans-activists are anti-science, in that they seek to normalize nonsense statements like “men can get pregnant”.
>They forbid the use of the terms gender identity among others
Please cite the laws where this term is legally forbidden to be used. And please don’t give us examples where a government agency that might just use a different term, because that is not the same thing. Pleas give us so e specific laws where it’s use is overtly forbidden.
> They also have restricted access to gender affirming healthcare even in the private sector
You are making a blanket generalized statement here but how about you give us what “they” are actually restricting and what their argument as to why they are restricting it actually is and why that argument is wrong.
Not knowing what specifics you are referring to, but my suspicion is the what is the use of puberty blockers and the who is young children. That would make your statement lack some important nuance. It’s also not necessarily an unusual or even controversial stance for conservatives to act conservatively in regards to supporting novel medical treatments on children. Especially treatments that are even polarizing within medical circles and can have a lifelong impact.
> Another one is the question, whether gender dysphoria results from mental illness, or the other way around.
[We have the data](https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1909367116), being trans is identifiable as early as 2-3yo, from the moment gender differences in behavior become apparent, long before any capacity to comprehend and adhere to complex expectations of boogeyman "transtrender parents".
You want to be treated as arguing in good faith, but fail to research the subject, propose questions that assume the conclusion, bring up vague anecdotes contrary to the statistics you're unwilling to consider, and disregard the fact that transgender children suffer from lack of treatment just as hard as wrongly treated cisgender children.
No, not really. The situation is very confusing, frankly. Where did this come from, where is it going? WHO estimates that the prevalence of trans people is around 0,01%. How does that track with the local school here, where every 10th girl is saying they're gender-fluid or trans? When I was young (1990s), nobody was trans. Perhaps they did not dare to be, I don't know.
The numbers and prevalence don't make sense to me. If this is a growing thing (i.e. people are becoming trans who would not have otherwise), this is definitely not a good thing. Being trans is an individual tragedy (i.e. it makes the life a whole lot more difficult -- even in a society that would 100% accept it), and if it's possible to prevent that tragedy happening, we should work towards such an outcome. I don't mean conversion therapy, that's obviously bullshit. I mean regular psychological healthcare and safety, and research to the causes of the phenomenon.
That's not to say that existing trans people shouldn't have human rights. They obviously deserve the same rights that we all have, and if they want to be called in a different pronoun that we would instinctively call them, it would be just extremely impolite not to do that -- or indeed as you say, encouraging suicide.
>>most people getting this treatment see themselves as women who are changing their bodies to match their gender, not as men who are changing their gender.
I am assuming you have some sort of source showing that this person has the desire to transition? If not I am unclear why this fact matters in the context of this story of what appears to be a doctor forcing medication on a patient against both their and their guardians desire or consent
> safeguarding of children against mutilation and sterilisation,
I am so, so tired.
None of that happens.
GnRH analogues are commonly used in gender affirming care, these are reversible.
Surgery is not done on minors.
> the protection of women's single-sex spaces,
Predatory men have absolutely no problems finding opportunities to predate on women. This made up crap need not happen.
You are parroting sound bites on issues you have no understanding of. For the sake of humanity, literally, please stop and start reading. You are on a very dark path.
>This poor boy has been forced - by a medical professional, no less - into a place on the gender plane that is different to the one that he identifies as.
Where are you getting this intent from? I don't see anything in the article to suggest this was the doctor's goal.
The specific claims of surgeries being performed at the specific hospital, most relevantly, which was the specific thing that motivated the bomb threats.
> It's well-documented that children are being subjected to 'gender-affirming' drugs and surgeries.
Its well-documented that a small numbet of children with identified needs are prescribed puberty blockers, and that this is extremely significant in reducing suicide rates; its well documented that even smaller number of teens get hormone treatments to promote puberty of the gender of identity, and that a positively miniscule number of teens get (mostly) top or mor rarely) bottom surgery, as well.
> We'll likely look back on this as a huge medical scandal, just as we do for the frontal lobotomy craze.
It’s more likely that we’ll look at the drive promoted largely on the basis of religious conservatism to impose ascribed gender over gender identity and deny such care, with clear evidence that doing so is killing people, as a medical scandal, similar to all the other times care was denied or known harmful interventions were applied systematically to a targeted marginalized community.
reply