Do you think it's wise to give children hormone blockers? What if they change their minds? What if you have an 18 year old who can never sire children because his parents decided it was trendy to convince him to be a girl? Which, by the way, is also actively happening in this country.

I don't give a fuck about what trans people are saying. It's evil to give children these drugs. They are irreversible. It should be totally illegal for anyone under 17 to take them due to the fact that their parents could pressure them into it.

Well if you can enlist in the military and die in a dumbass war that makes no actual sense outside of just pure insane powerlust for the few, then you can get your hormones blocked at that same age.

As for younger than that, I dunno, I don't have much knowledge on the subject tbh, and I suspect that every person who constantly talks about kids getting hormone treatment don't have much knowledge on the subject either. It's like the abortion debate where people on one side like to moralize their strange obsessions of fetuses with a very specific set of scientific(ish) articles written in the 1980's. Same here with people bringing up kids getting gender reassignment surgery at the age of, what, four?

Actually I'm finding a lot of parallels here, like anti-abortion types obsess over the procedure in question in the same way that transphodes obsess over the gender reassignment surgery--they're just jumping from peaks-to-peaks in outrage. It's like they're strange animals operating on their overly strong instinct of revulsion, without any other consideration to anything or anyone else on the subject.

https://www.livescience.com/62893-transgender-kids-puberty-blo ckers-hrt-hormones.html

"Prepubescent kids don't take hormones, and minors never get genital surgery."

Oh, ok, well that solves that. Fuck you marlon you asshead motherfucker.

Marlon, the question of whether people under the age of 18 should ever be given sex reassignment hormones is a tough one, and I don't know if I have an answer for it. Not sure what I'd do if my kid was facing this dilemma, honestly, but...

I think it's a guiding principle of American life that you're allowed to fuck your life up in just about any way that you want. Join a religious cult? Weigh 350 pounds? Drink an 18-pack of Busch light a night? Get a terrible facial tattoo? Hold outrageously stupid, hateful views? Okay, cool. Whatever. You can't smoke doobs legally in a lot of places, it's true, but even that seems to be changing.

So I find it a bit rich that a lot of these cultural warrior freedom-loving types are all like "but what if you're making a mistake?" Oh, well, I'm sure that certain trans people, or formerly trans people, have regretted certain decisions they've made. But that's America, that's life, and I'm not too concerned.

Baron Von Bad Beaver has a point when he or she or they say that a lot of this nonsense is based on the politics of revulsion, but I think certain people who seem to like the idea that you're either a man or a woman and there's never any in-between space dislike the idea that their worldview is being messed with. But, speaking as a slightly soft dude who's into cats and books and just cooked lunch for his aging father, gender roles are in constant flux with or without trans kids being made part of the equation. Men raise kids as single dads and women work in construction and everyone constantly plays around gender norms. Simply denying a small population of kids access to sex-reassignment hormones will not make the world simpler or more comprehensible in terms of gender. This debate has more to do with cultural conservatives level of comfort than any genuine concern for kids with gender dysphoria. It's a incredibly cynical concern troll, writ large.

The debate here is with people who think they are being progressive and fair minded when they are promoting anti science thinking and the conservation of the idea that engaging in masculine or feminine behaviours actually makes one a male or a female.

Miss Henson, you're bringing that nuanced view as always, and I appreciate it.

That said, doctors do not prescribe face tattoos, cults, or obesity as means to reduce some kind of symptoms. Those are personal choices that are not normalized by the medical community. The speaker in this video insists that he was pressured into transitioning by, essentially, a bogus prescription. Do you buy that line of thinking? Does the involvement of medical professionals make a difference in terms of our freedom to make personal choices that we may regret?

Regardless, the real topic here is kids, who can't get face tats, buy weed, or join a cult. If a parent gave their kid a face tat, we would know what to think of it. But this is a whole lotta complicated, and I don't know what to think.

And for the record, my BS alarms were clanging throughout the video, especially when he used sensational language to describe medical procedures. "Why are abusing children with hormones and cutting their bodies apart?" Give me a break, dude. Two can play that game: Why are we poisoning cancer patients with deadly radiation and chopping into their bodies to yank out pieces that get thrown in the trash? Etc.

That is an absurd comparison. We treat cancer with cisplatin because we have clinical trials that constitute excellent evidence that it improves survival rates. Gender dysphoria is a complicated disorder, it is the clinical distress associated with one's own sex. Are you aware of the quality of evidence that supports hormones/SRS for children? Are you aware of the risks? Do you think children may be better off being informed they shouldn't constrain the behaviours to rigid gender roles if they don't feel like it?

You misinterpreted my point, which was merely that any medical procedure can be made to sound inhumane if you describe it using scary words. I was highlighting how this dude tried to score points by making medical procedures sound scary, but "scary-sounding" should not be a factor in accepting or rejecting a treatment.

And no, I'm not aware of quality evidence either way. I'm not an expert on this topic, not even an armchair expert. And I made that clear in my comment.

Scary sounding is a great factor to consider in a treatment, you have to assess evidence for outcomes and decide if the scariness (harm) is worth it. An amputation to protect against infection or metastasis? Christ that is scary, but probably worth it. An amputation of one's genitals to treat a disorder that seems to be rooted in the mind? Maybe not, maybe careful non invasive treatment would be safer and more effective in many cases.

In other posts on this topic, I shared a link to an endocrinology society guideline which summarizes evidence and current practice guidelines. The posts by gmol and brawndo demonstrate continued willing ignorance of that data which is pretty easy to understand if you read it, which does acknowledge current limitations in available data, but goes point by point over which therapies are indicated and when, as well as the many hurdles that are needed to warrant each intervention. Here you go,

https://www.endocrine.org/guidelines-and-clinical-practice/cli nical-practice-guidelines/gender-dysphoria-gender-incongruence

Basically puberty blockade is pretty much vital to prevent unwanted secondary sexual characteristics. Those changes are not reversible without ridiculous lengths of surgery and behavioral therapy and add absurd expense and suffering to the lives of GID sufferers.

Henson probably has the most valid and helpful viewpoint here, which is, what do you fucking care if a tiny minority of the population wishes to pursue treatments early in life for a condition that they are going to have their whole life? Moreover, have you ever considered that the root of any regret in transitioning may be that society continues a revulsion fueled backlash that perpetuates the far higher rates of discrimination and hate that trans people face? Why do you think there were literally hundreds of gay people in San Francisco lighting police cars on fire in San Francisco during the Harvey Milk years: it was a backlash to the policing of their activities in bars, mass arrests and gaybashing violence. You don't hear about rioting gays anymore because that discriminatory practice has stopped, and society has come to better accept gay people as people, and you certainly don't hear people attributing those long forgotten violent acts as "part of the problem of being gay." Society is the problem, not the individual.

As for concerns of what implications infertility in a small sect of the population will have, simply fuck off. The planet is dying from overcrowding and it is a total non issue. This has always been about individuals' suffering and doctors practice ethically to ease suffering. Read their guidelines and get off their backs, please. Medical societies are a huge mix of docs from all over the country with some being from highly conservative states and backgrounds, and doctors practice based on scientific evidence, which though limited in a statistically rare condition like this, promotes the use of these meds for these people.

Thanks, Simillion.

Smil,
You've testified that you suffer from gender dysphoria and I have no interest in pushing the point. Good luck to you. As for the evidence, synthesizing clinical research is hard, this review and associated post did a good job with:

The development of these interventions should, therefore, occur in the context of research, and treatments for under 18 gender dysphoric children and adolescents remain largely experimental. There are a large number of unanswered questions that include the age at start, reversibility; adverse events, long term effects on mental health, quality of life, bone mineral density, osteoporosis in later life and cognition. We wonder whether off label use is appropriate and justified for drugs such as spironolactone which can cause substantial harms and even death. We are also ignorant of the long-term safety profiles of the different GAH regimens. The current evidence base does not support informed decision making and safe practice in children.

https://blogs.bmj.com/bmjebmspotlight/2019/02/25/gender-affirm ing-hormone-in-children-and-adolescents-evidence-review/

I believe giving a child hormone blockers results in permanent changes, according to the medical data I've looked at.

What's to stop some crazy woman from dressing her 3 year old son as a girl and proclaiming he has gender dysphoria and wants to be a girl, and plans to put him on puberty blockers that will in all likelihood fuck him up and take his chances of being a man away from him? That is happening with the save James case. In that case, both parents are terrible but the crazy bitch who calls herself a mother is going to mutilate her son so she can have a girl.

I am sick of hearing how there have always been transgendered people/kids. We didn't have hormone treatment in ancient Mesopotamia. This is all incredibly new and doctors haven't been doing it for very long. There isn't a lot of data now but think of all the kids who are going to come forth telling us in ten years they never would have gone through it if they had known what it really involved and how they would feel about it later.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/when-transgender-ki ds-transition-medical-risks-are-both-known-and-unknown/

In addition to that, MOST boys that express interest in crossdressing grow out of that desire. So what are we going to do, turn all of them into girls and then pretend we didn't know the facts afterwards? Children can't make this decision for themselves and I'm sick of hearing about parents who are crossdressing their young children because "they asked for it". We don't know that. I think a lot of the time it's the parents wanting it to be true. There are lots of screwed up women out there who want to turn their boy into a girl just because that's what they wanted and now they have the perfect excuse.

I compare this whole movement to the sterilization of mentally ill people and orphaned girls throughout the 20th century. Back then, doctors were also "doing the right thing".

And yeah, I agree that adults should have the choice to do whatever they want to their bodies. I disagree with the assessment that children should be allowed to do whatever they want to their bodies.

"As for concerns of what implications infertility in a small sect of the population will have, simply fuck off. The planet is dying from overcrowding and it is a total non issue."

I just had to correct this. We have an infertility crisis in the West. Men's sperm counts have dropped to HALF of their previous levels and that could be obesity, drugs, or any number of environmental factors but it ain't good. That is totally wrong.

And it's also not a good argument. I care if even one child has been sterilized and later as an adult regrets it. That's taking their choice away when they are vulnerable. Not all of these kids are going to be happy adults if you do through with gender reassignment treatment young and I think you will see a wave of abuse cases come forward over the years.

Humans try to do what they think is right in order to be compassionate and this whole transgender movement is on appearance trying to go for a compassionate attitude towards children that identify as the opposite sex. Okay, I get that. But the trans movement is also full of liars and bullshitters that just want there to be NO discussion, NO criticism and NO forethought put into these treatments. It's a militant outlook on a subject which could destroy lives. It's callous and it's dangerous to assume that no one will be hurt by using these methods and practices on pre-pubescents and teens.

GOOD JOB GUYS NOW TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT THE ETHICS OF SEX ASSIGNMENT SURGERY FOR INTERSEX INFANTS.

Gmol: your post is an opinion that hasn't accounted for two important details: one is that puberty has a time window of action and if nothing is done, permanent changes occur that may ruin a trans person's hope of passing later in life, and two is that humanitarian needs have often necessitated what you are calling experimentation and as such the astronomically higher rates of suicide and violent crime are what you risk by taking no action.

I also want to point out that to arbitrarily set the age of 18 as adulthood is blinding yourself to the fact that mental health assessments are required before permanent changes are made and that these assessments include an analysis of what we consider adult skills, such as the logical and temporal consistency of the child's beliefs that trust me, many >18 adults will struggle to pass in other domains in their life. Your hyperbolic statements are refusing to acknowledge that children are just future adults and that learning and developing into an adult is a continuous process that starts well before age 18 and continues biologically and psychologically well past age 25. If there are concerns on the mental health specialist's assessment that the decision to transition do not represent a fixed gender dysphoria condition then that patient isn't getting their approval letter to go forward with any procedures.

Brawndo: you have a lot to say and I can tell you are trying to bring up new points like an infertility crisis which is not related to the gender dysphoria debate. Sorry, but hyperbole about "crazy moms" had nothing to do with my experience, and once again, a mental health provider would almost invariably be assessing a child's upbringing as part of their psychological profile and if something insane like that popped up I hope they would pursue an alternative diagnosis. I am aware of transient interests in crossdressing and I think parents should have a hands off approach to their kids in this area and shouldn't get too concerned one way or another, but just as the hypothesis that being gay is something learned and not innate has been pretty much debunked with the condemnation of gay camps I don't think that even encouragement or a welcoming attitude is going to push a kid to going full trans, especially to the point of taking a pill. I don't know what kind of 12 year old you were but I would never take a pill that my mom told me I needed unless I knew what it was for and if I never really took crossdressing seriously anyway I would refuse to take it. So again, more hyperbole, which is the crux of every argument against the rights of young adults to have control of their own body is.

Sterilization is an unfortunate side effect of the gender affirming therapy we have. It is something that needs further looks at. Potential side effects of the therapies we have are a concern but are generally safe. Hormonal effects on bones like osteoporosis are manageable by dosing the replacement hormones to the correct range to support bone health. Spironolactone is a long used drug for other purposes that has risks of birth defects in women taking it (luckily women never get prescribed it for gender affirming therapy, it is for mtfs) and has kidney side effects that need blood tests for monitoring.

I have been to multiple conferences to learn how transgender care is managed. I have spoken to dozens of physician and non physician advocates. Your arguments would be laughed at because they are not grounded in science.

Smil, you are mistaking a careful scientific review in a journal as an "opinion".

gmol: No, there is an opinion, i.e., an assertion, at the end of your quote. It was this part:

" The current evidence base does not support informed decision making and safe practice in children."

This statement can be worded differently: "There is not enough evidence to support doing this safely in children." And yet, it is being done, to the minority of children that meet the criteria for puberty postponement, and it is being done in a minority of teenagers that meet criteria for some surgeries as well (though RARELY would any definitive, sterilizing treatment be done on minors anyway).

That is because, if you read through the guidelines, these decisions are made on an individual basis. When there is enough supporting evidence -- for an individual -- then these therapies are being done. The statement you're quoting is pointing out that these therapies cannot be provided as is to an entire population, i.e., all people with GID.

Endocrinologists are aware of these limitations, and therefore they have guidelines to help you make the best decision for an individual.

gmol, if you want an analogy to help you understand the difference, it's like this:

If you have high cholesterol, then the data shows you need to lower cholesterol with a medication that lowers cholesterol (as opposed to diet and exercise alone). That's because TENS OF THOUSANDS of people were put in randomized trials, which controls for all the other factors involving cholesterol via random selection, to either get the medication or not, and those that meet specific criteria all benefited from the medication (i.e., less people died).

The data shows that if you're borderline-high cholesterol, then "discuss with your doctor." They have other ideas for the borderline cases; get additional tests, like the lipoprotein a level. If those are high, then "discuss treatment."

The reason why the guidelines don't just state "give cholesterol lowering meds to borderline cases" is the same concept as why gender reassignment therapies isn't done on a blanket case to all gender dysphoria sufferers; instead, the guidelines are pretty clear that these decisions are individualized.

However, are there still lots of doctors prescribing these cholesterol medications to the borderline cases? Yes. because those decisions were individualized. Are all those doctors practicing strict, evidence-based medicine? No, they aren't, but they are practicing to the best of their scientific knowledge and trying to apply what data we do have to the patients that are asking for help to prevent death from their condition.

The same idea applies to gender dysphoria. There is a lot of medicine that is practiced based on "expert opinion", and that practice is what precedes "evidence based medicine." Someday there may or may not be the conclusive evidence that REFUTES the use of these therapies, but there has NOT been that evidence yet; instead, the TREND is to support it, it just doesn't meet statistical significance.

Are you satisfied with this distinction?

And as long as you post one literature review that asserts that there evidence does not support gender transition, how about these statements from a cornell based study on the same exact topic:

"Overview

We conducted a systematic literature review of all peer-reviewed articles published in English between 1991 and June 2017 that assess the effect of gender transition on transgender well-being. We identified 56 studies that consist of primary research on this topic, of which 52 (93%) found that gender transition improves the overall well-being of transgender people, while 4 (7%) report mixed or null findings. We found no studies concluding that gender transition causes overall harm. As an added resource, we separately include 17 additional studies that consist of literature reviews and practitioner guidelines.
Bottom Line

This search found a robust international consensus in the peer-reviewed literature that gender transition, including medical treatments such as hormone therapy and surgeries, improves the overall well-being of transgender individuals. The literature also indicates that greater availability of medical and social support for gender transition contributes to better quality of life for those who identify as transgender."

Anyway, gmol, I don't know about your background besides finding whichever articles suit your bias on the topic, but in my experience doctors constantly refer to guideline statements from societies that focus on the topic; just like the american heart association sets the guidelines for heart problems, the endocrinology societies have taken the lead in managing gender dysphoria medically, and it is those guidelines that word their position quite clearly:

"Gender-dysphoric/gender-incongruent persons should receive a safe and effective hormone regimen that will suppress the body’s sex hormone secretion, determined at birth and manifested at puberty, and maintain levels of sex steroids within the normal range for the person’s affirmed gender."

The key point is in identifying who is gender-incongruent. Prosthetic-mind below posts that proving that is challenging, as is proving any diagnosis in the behavioral health field. Endocrinologists rely HEAVILY on a proper mental health assessment to confirm the plan of action. Endocrinologists do NOT make the diagnosis of gender dysphoria on their own. We do need more study on WHO is properly identified as gender dysphoric so that the available treatments can be used on them -- as early as possible -- to prevent the pain of unwanted secondary sexual characteristics.

The answer to these medical dilemmas is never " let's see what the Heritage Foundation has to say".

A "wave of abuse cases" seems pretty sketchy, because that would be the convergence of abusive parents and a negligent doctor. It certainly could happen, but "a wave"?

There is a risk involved in treatment, but also a risk in withholding treatment. There's no way around that. Parents and doctors are not 100 per cent perfectly qualified to always make the right decision, they're just more qualified by anyone else. Certainly they're more qualified than the Heritage Foundation, or YouTube, or comment sections in general.

>>>>Do you think it's wise to give children hormone blockers? What if they change their minds? What if you have an 18 year old who can never sire children because his parents decided it was trendy to convince him to be a girl?

I'm not a doctor. Why the fuck are you asking me?

You're not a doctor. Why the fuck are you asking anyone?

Hey, what if all those kids at Saint Jude's don't really have cancer? Treating them for cancer could be really harmful, if they don't have cancer. I mean, sure, they're doctors, and we're a bunch of random nerds on the internet, dummies, but how do we know that they're just not doing it for all that sweet "round up your dominos check for St. Judes' money? I demand that the republican party, and their expert, Dr. Brawndo investigate.

Better access to effective medicine is certainly great. We need reason and evidence to help us figure out what is safe and effective, just doling out treatment that might be neither is a dangerous thing to do.

i think you replied to the wrong comment

No, you are suggesting that increased access to these "treatments" is a good idea:

"this shit should be covered and costless as a basic goddamn concept of the idea that medical care is a proper fucking human basic right by any reasonable metric"

What I am telling you is that we don't know if gender affirming hormone treatment (what you are presumably referring to by "this shit") is safe or effective because we don't have good evidence that it is.

you seem to be under the impression that if you pull the string coming from my asshole that i'll have said the things you're intimating i said

it does tickle a bit though

gmol, that argument of 'parents dolling out treatments' is the same counter argument towards therapy of basic mental health and developmental disabilities that leads to the same self-medicating that Ugh is describing.

The key problem with this argument is that it is more reflective of parents at their wits end due to lack of coverage, than a neglectful/abusive parent. And that lack of coverage reflecting how much coverage IS needed with basic mental health even when you do find a covered practitioner since being pigeon holed into making things work often makes things much, much worse. The 'no pressure' rule of therapy is about professionalism mainly for that reason. The last time I had a therapist on an extremely limited coverage, they had immediately caught on that I couldn't afford anything but the charity sessions they could give and the therapist concluded my last session by essentially to 'hang in there and stay strong'

Shit is a lot better these days for me. Largely out of pure fortunate circumstance that I found therapists who were experienced with my problems as well as covered by state insurance as well as family support.

Recently a cousin of mine came out as trans. Their family has a lot more resources at their disposal. Said cousin is miles ahead of what I could have seen myself at that age

Me? I'm 30+ years old. I feel like I'm slowly going insane and feel everything is going downhill for me. Shit is still better than it could have been, but a huge part of that is accepting the circumstances, which are fucking deep as shit, that led to my family accepting self-medication over seeking advice on the mental health system and how to engage with it.

To summarize with a question. Gmol, what makes you think that the problems being described by anti-trans are actually universally a problem, not just more prevalent to the disadvantaged, and at what point are those descriptions not going to lead into the same problems that affect non-trans issues? Because a huge part of that side of the political coin sees entitlements as weighing down the country, anti-LGBT rights is one of their footholds where they can leverage that mental health isn't an issue except for the insane, thus undermine the health care system by slowing down options and progress to a crawl. That the only people who should seek mental health are the homeless and unsuccessful and anyone who can easily be ostracized by society.

Dude, that is awful. You have my deepest sympathies; I sincerely hope that your therapist and/or whatever treatment you are getting is helping. Family support is a big deal in these matters (as you see w your cousin).

I don't quite get what you are getting at though? Can you shrink this:

'Gmol, what makes you think that the problems being described by anti-trans are actually universally a problem, not just more prevalent to the disadvantaged, and at what point are those descriptions not going to lead into the same problems that affect non-trans issues? '

into something a little more concise? Is this what you are asking: "Do you think that gender dysphoria may be more prevalent in people with lower socio-economic status and associated with a whole host of other problems?"

gmol, I wouldn't accept that phrasing. The question I asked has a subtext with in it. And it has to do with a nationalist dog whistle on ableism that as much as people would think would be out of date can still be seen in homophobia (with transphobia being the new norm) that titles itself as a choice of living.

Please do clarify your question to me then.

I see no reason why I have to.

OK, I can't answer then. Your question is not clearly stated, I gave my best shot at interpreting and you do not accept that interpretation.

These are for you. The pundit's don't or don't want to understand the real costs of their words and "but what if"s.

^^^

Some thoughtful analysis on the evidence for the commonly cited suicide rates:
https://www.transgendertrend.com/a-scientist-reviews-transgend er-suicide-stats/

The entire premise is that giving the notice that life will be hard for these youths is somehow problematic? Which is completely contradictory on the RaRe research which that they simply paste a link to, that includes studies on circumventing depression and suicide ideation? As well as they also mention that their scope was inherently limited due to breaking up the surveys between LGB and T on grounds of differences as well as acknowledging the massive diversity with in LGBT+.

I'm going to be frank here. Once you have suicide on the mind it doesn't leave. It takes much more than being told then that you're susceptible to suicide. It's much more helpful to be ready.

Same deal when it comes to me and the possibility of addiction. I've always worried about it because I had a hunch that I'd be susceptible to it. When I'm told not to drink by any therapist, that shit just bounces off because I already know and currently looking for bigger signs. Same shit with suicide.

Hell, recently I found out that people with functioning autism have a shorter lifespan due to suicide. I know well enough that what ever I have to go through, I will eventually have to deal with it.

So aside from that. Do you have an off switch?

I mean you didn't even try even when I gave a big directional nudge.

site needs a good one every once and a while!

The conservative mindset refuses to comprehend that there's any risk involved in nonaction.