Transgender MEGATHREAD

[Josquius]

The argument against putting potentially trans kids on hormone blockers goes something like this:

We have very little peer reviewed scientific evidence on the long-term safety of hormone blockers.  These drugs were designed to delay puberty in children who have early, or precocious, puberty, and weren't studied to give to adolescents in the normal age range for puberty.

The second argument goes something like this: in most gender clinics the overwhelming majority of kids who go on puberty blockers wind up going on to take cross-sex hormones, so the notion that you're just "buying time" is a fiction.  Finally we don't have good evidence about how many youths with adolescent gender identity disorder will naturally desist over time as they grow older and come to accept their natal sex.

Surely these two cancel each other out？
That a majority of kids on puberty blockers will go onto decide to transition does tend to show that most of them don't just grow out of it?

[Barrister]

The argument against putting potentially trans kids on hormone blockers goes something like this:

We have very little peer reviewed scientific evidence on the long-term safety of hormone blockers.  These drugs were designed to delay puberty in children who have early, or precocious, puberty, and weren't studied to give to adolescents in the normal age range for puberty.

The second argument goes something like this: in most gender clinics the overwhelming majority of kids who go on puberty blockers wind up going on to take cross-sex hormones, so the notion that you're just "buying time" is a fiction.  Finally we don't have good evidence about how many youths with adolescent gender identity disorder will naturally desist over time as they grow older and come to accept their natal sex.

Surely these two cancel each other out？
That a majority of kids on puberty blockers will go onto decide to transition does tend to show that most of them don't just grow out of it?

So again - I'm not advancing the argument, I'm not saying it's my opinion.  It's a complicated debate with strong argument on both sides.

The argument is that transitioning tends to become a self-fulfilling prophecy once you medically transition.  It's one thing to be a girl who identifies as trans, allows her body to develop naturally, then comes to accept her gender, as compared to someone who starts cross-sex hormones, has top surgery.

There was a famous court case in the UK where a young woman, Keira Bell, in part sued a gender identity disorder clinic for allowing her to medically transition at age 15.  She was successful.  Googling her name brings up this version of her story in her own words.  https://www.persuasion.community/p/keira-bell-my-story


The flip side argument of course is that if a youth truly does "know" they are trans, then delaying transition and allowing them to go through their natural puberty can be psychologically harmful and certainly will decrease their chances at being able to "pass" later on in life.

[viper37]

But what I do know is my belief that, all other things being equal, we should treat people as they would like to be treated and call them what they would like to be called.

Different things.

George wants to be addressed as Georgina and considers herself a female.
Go with it.

But as a society, we have to wonder at the increase in such people who firmly believe they are of the wrong sex.  In the short term, we have to go with it to avoid potential suffering down the line.  But when the state is asked more and more to perform surgeries, plastic or otherwise to make some people feel better about themselves, it's our duty to ask&wonder why it is happening.

Maybe they are wrong.  Maybe we are wrong. But I feel we are going way too easy on them.  A woman declares herself a man and, within a very short time frame, she can have her breasts removed to appear 'male'.  It's a serious procedure.  And modern psychology doesn't want to really confront its patients about their beliefs.  And doctors will follow the advice of psychologists&psychiatrists who are unwilling to confront people about their beliefs.

I do not think science has reached a definitive conclusion on this, on what is happening, yet, we are going full ahead in listening to activists of all kinds instead of real, hard science.  And just like with homosexuality in the 80s and 90s, scientists feel pressure to not touch this subject...  It's a vicious circle.  And sometimes, we maim people for life because of a wrongful diagnosis in the first place.  Many of the people who go all the way in express regrets later on.  Many will never fully transition.  So, clearly, something his happening and must be scientifically investigated.  Without the Woke Brigade's interference.

[crazy canuck]

maybe it has always been so, but those who expressed themselves in that way were beaten or worse.

[viper37]

maybe it has always been so, but those who expressed themselves in that way were beaten or worse.

Possibly, I am not an expert in LGBTQ+ history.

However, we do study covid-19 and its effects on patients while managing not to beat or do something worst to those afflicted.
Since the comparison to a disease may be afflicting some people's feeling, I'd just say that modern science has done a lot of behavioral & brain studies without beating or killing its subjects for the fun of it.

I do not think it is at all warranted that scientists wanting to express opinions and/or publishing studies in this field be subjected to cancel culture as they are now, as they were earlier on (to a lesser degree), when they were studying homosexuality.

[Josquius]

So again - I'm not advancing the argument, I'm not saying it's my opinion.  It's a complicated debate with strong argument on both sides.

The argument is that transitioning tends to become a self-fulfilling prophecy once you medically transition.  It's one thing to be a girl who identifies as trans, allows her body to develop naturally, then comes to accept her gender, as compared to someone who starts cross-sex hormones, has top surgery.

NP. I get you're just explaining it.
Though I really disagree that there are particularly great arguments from the anti trans side.
So much of what I see there is really transparently bad faith. Claiming to hide behind a shield of science whilst totally not understanding the science at all.

As to transitioning a self fulfilling prophecy... That's the point of hormone blockers. They aren't transitioning. They just delay  natural development until someone can make a decision.
I could see an argument against them if they were handed out like candy... But I don't believe they are. They're pretty tightly controlled unless it seems very likely someone is trans.

As to people just having to get used to it.... Yeah. That's the kind of argument that at least I can understand from Conservatives. A "accept your fate, grin and bare it" one. But there's no need for that in the 21st century West.

Maybe they are wrong.  Maybe we are wrong. But I feel we are going way too easy on them.  A woman declares herself a man and, within a very short time frame, she can have her breasts removed to appear 'male'.  It's a serious procedure.  And modern psychology doesn't want to really confront its patients about their beliefs.  And doctors will follow the advice of psychologists&psychiatrists who are unwilling to confront people about their beliefs.

This is not the impression I get from trans people at all.
From all reports I've heard it's a pretty difficult arduous process where most are rejected and you really have to learn how to jump through hoops to get anywhere.
I've read several stories of people being rejected for not dressing feminine enough and the like.

As to trans people being more common today... I really don't think that's the case.
Quite ironically I think there's a bit of a similarity between trans people and nazis here. Where historically they would have been the village weirdo, relegated to the fringes of society, today they're allowed to live full normal lives and have contact with others in the same situation by the Internet.

[crazy canuck]

maybe it has always been so, but those who expressed themselves in that way were beaten or worse.

Possibly, I am not an expert in LGBTQ+ history.

However, we do study covid-19 and its effects on patients while managing not to beat or do something worst to those afflicted.
Since the comparison to a disease may be afflicting some people's feeling, I'd just say that modern science has done a lot of behavioral & brain studies without beating or killing its subjects for the fun of it.

I do not think it is at all warranted that scientists wanting to express opinions and/or publishing studies in this field be subjected to cancel culture as they are now, as they were earlier on (to a lesser degree), when they were studying homosexuality.

I have to admit, I do not understand your point.

[Barrister]

So again - I'm not advancing the argument, I'm not saying it's my opinion.  It's a complicated debate with strong argument on both sides.

The argument is that transitioning tends to become a self-fulfilling prophecy once you medically transition.  It's one thing to be a girl who identifies as trans, allows her body to develop naturally, then comes to accept her gender, as compared to someone who starts cross-sex hormones, has top surgery.

NP. I get you're just explaining it.
Though I really disagree that there are particularly great arguments from the anti trans side.
So much of what I see there is really transparently bad faith. Claiming to hide behind a shield of science whilst totally not understanding the science at all.

As to transitioning a self fulfilling prophecy... That's the point of hormone blockers. They aren't transitioning. They just delay  natural development until someone can make a decision.
I could see an argument against them if they were handed out like candy... But I don't believe they are. They're pretty tightly controlled unless it seems very likely someone is trans.

As to people just having to get used to it.... Yeah. That's the kind of argument that at least I can understand from Conservatives. A "accept your fate, grin and bare it" one. But there's no need for that in the 21st century West.

So maybe it's a difference between N America and the UK.  As I mentioned earlier there was a lawsuit in the UK over youth transitioning and the court ruled things had been too lax.

But here's a podcast I listened to a couple of months ago.  The host interviews Dr. Erica Anderson, a trans woman gender clinician from the Bay Area (so can hardly be accused of being anti-trans).  In it she criticizes other clinicians for being much too quick to just start handing out hormones (I'm very broadly paraphrasing as I didn't listen to it recently).

https://barpodcast.fireside.fm/bonus8

As to "having to get used to it"... so the diagnosis is one of Gender Identity Disorder.  Nobody is saying "too bad just live with it".  Clearly for a number of people the best way to treat gender identity disorder is to socially then medically transition.  But for some number of youths (we don't know how many) GID does appear to go away over time.  So wouldn't "watchful waiting" be a better approach for some rather than immediately going on a life-long hormone treatment which can have some very serious side-effects?

[Josquius]

That's the point of puberty blockers.
They delay making a decision either way.

[The Brain]

Does "being much too quick" mean they are acting outside of regulations?

[Barrister]

Does "being much too quick" mean they are acting outside of regulations?

There are no regulations, as in legally binding rules.

There is the WPATH Standards of Care (by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health) which does outline standards for how to treat people with GID / gender nonconformity, but they are not binding (and this was what Dr. Anderson was criticizing other clinicians for not following).

[The Brain]

Does "being much too quick" mean they are acting outside of regulations?

There are no regulations, as in legally binding rules.

There is the WPATH Standards of Care (by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health) which does outline standards for how to treat people with GID / gender nonconformity, but they are not binding (and this was what Dr. Anderson was criticizing other clinicians for not following).

Maybe the practice of medicine ought to be regulated.

[Razgovory]

I admit I find it very weird and I have a hard time understanding it, but my personal hang-ups shouldn't cause other people grief.  If a person feels that their gender is different than their sex, I'll respect that.  Calling someone by their preferred pronoun is no problem.  It's always good to be polite.  Transgender bathrooms, or sports is fine.  I honestly don't see what the big deal is.  It's not like there is a tide of transgender about to drown us.  I think it's fairly rare. Yi may have a point about gender being a mental thing rather purely physical, but does that matter?

[11B4V]

Live and let live.

Easy enough.

[Barrister]

Jacob I think instead of pasting a reply, you just edited my own post in your own words.  If you don't mind I think I'll delete my post.