I'm sick and tired of your both sides-ism Lisa. If Republican or conservative laws have gone too far, it's because they have been backed into a corner by gender ideologues and Democrats who seen any and all boundaries are oppressive. Transitioning children is abusive and barbaric. Our sons are being made eunuchs and our daughters breasts are being cut off all in the name of progressivism. Banning transition for those under 18 is absolutely necessary. Gender ideology and the transgenderism movement has radicalized me and I now oppose any transition, including for adults. It paves the way for this barbarity. No doctor would amputate the leg of a person with chronic and intense knee pain, yet here we are, mutilating, amputating and sterilizing the bodies of children.
I agree that its criminal to be stealing a child’s future fertility, sexual function, intact body. The republicans wouldn’t have to enact such laws, but this barbaric practice being done has forced them into it. Who in their right thinking mind can condone such practices on innocent children? We are supposed to protect the most vulnerable and instead we are butchering them and it’s legal!!!!! It’s horrific and what choice do the states that don’t want this legal have? No state should even have to make these laws. It should be self evident that this is insane and goes against the very nature of humankind.
This bill would invite matching but opposite bills in TX and etc that would license parents to kidnap their own children away of custodial agreements if they didn’t want them treated. And the incentive for the parent to lie in that case would be even greater - they don’t even have to pretend the kid is GD or seek treatmwnt, just claim that the other parent will do so. The natural end point of this arms race is that whoever runs off with the kid first wins.
No matter what you think of pediatric gender medicine, this seems like a disastrous idea. I genuinely find it hard to believe that California is so consumed with red-blue culture war stuff that they’d even consider a bill like this, with all its obvious consequences.
“California is so consumed with red-blue culture war stuff” that performative legislation like SB 107 is now the entire governing model of the entrenched Democratic power structure. And Gavin Newsom is almost 100% responsible. He’s convinced that stunts like this are his ticket to the Presidency in 2024.
Astonishing the number of issues this proposed legislation raises. Legally and politically, it is a more radical act of secession than was "Sanctuary Cities." From a philosophical perspective, the degree of pseudo-revolutionary rationalism divorced from reality is astonishing, and clarifies further the the irrational(ist) endpoints of this (ideological) "process." Truly, reality itself has become "reactionary."
Gavin Newsom’s entrenched California Democratic power machine has declared all-out war on the U.S. constitution. In addition to the atrocities documented here in SB 107, California has already passed a slew of so-called gun control bills that are blatantly unconstitutional. SB 1327 mirrored Texas’s SB 8 but for gun sellers instead of abortionists. And AB 2571 criminalized all speech about guns—in direct violation of the First Amendment.
Newsom believes these stunts will guarantee him the White House in 2024. And the rest of the Democrats—probably correctly—are convinced that this is how they can best ensure re-election.
Well this is timely. I just read that the Tavistock gender affirming clinic for children in the UK is shutting down because it has been deemed unsafe for children. The UK has been completely captured by trans ideology so this is huge.
Instead of rushing children into life-altering treatment on puberty blockers it will be replaced by regional centres at existing children’s hospitals offering more holistic care” with “strong links to mental health services”.
"Are they aware that, for instance, puberty blockers are increasingly seen not as a pause button on puberty, giving time to explore, but an initial step in lifelong medicalization; in many studies, the number of young people who go on to cross-sex hormones after PBs is over 95%."
This seems disingenuous. First, the two contrasting parts of the claim aren't actually in conflict with each other: puberty blockers are presented as a pause button on puberty, giving time to explore, *and then* 95% of young people who are given that opportunity to explore decide that transition is the right choice for themselves.
Are we supposed to believe that this comes as a surprise to the young people involved? That if they had known they were eventually going to choose transition, they would've preferred not to go on puberty blockers in the first place?
The implication is that 95% is too high. What percentage of young people on puberty blockers do you believe "should" choose transition eventually?
"Are they aware of the link between cross-sex hormones in pubescent bodies and infertility?"
If they know anything at all about how human reproduction works, then yes, they're aware that after transition they'll be infertile. These kids aren't stupid.
Children do not have the maturity to make life-altering, irreversible decisions that will impact them in numerous ways forever. Cutting off healthy body parts and destroying your body is not OK, even if you are fully aware of the results.
Dear Mama Bear, we have an obligation to witness the truth, as you are doing. I am guessing that you also know that committed ideologists will always find "their truth," and that only real-world disaster will terminate their influence, after much suffering by others. They themselves will die in the bunker or blend back into the population after their reign comes to an end. Reality reasserts itself - as with Lysenko during Soviet times - but always after prolonged immiseration. We have seemingly entered such a tragic phase of misrule.
Madness combined with moralism is an appalling sort of beast.
Children aren't candidates for surgery anyway, so that's a non-problem. At that age, the treatment options are:
(1) Give them puberty blockers for now, and when they're older, let them choose whether to continue their birth-sex puberty or start cross-sex hormones
or
(2) Do nothing and let their birth-sex puberty run its course
The issue with #2, of course, is that if it eventually turns out they'd prefer to transition -- and it sounds like that would be the case, up to 95% of the time -- then having gone through their birth-sex puberty will make that much more difficult and expensive when it happens.
they dont need surgery to be permanently sterilized. the meds do that. youre lying when you say most kids with dysphoria prefer to transition. 85% ID again as their birth gender and their dysphoria goes away with puberty. even for the 15% of kids who choose to ID as another gender, theres no evidence this helps them in the long term. amaterdam says those on the meds long term have 50% reduced life expectantly and 20X greater suicide rate. the reason gender meds dont help is they are treating the wrong problem. most kids who ID as trans are simply gay, were abused, had trama or are autistic. their issues have nothing to do with gender. thats why gender care doesnt work.
"they dont need surgery to be permanently sterilized. the meds do that."
Cross-sex hormones do that; puberty blockers don't. Puberty blockers are reversible.
"youre lying when you say most kids with dysphoria prefer to transition."
I got that number directly from the article we're commenting on, so if I'm lying, so is the original author.
I mean, that's exactly what it says: "the number of young people who go on to cross-sex hormones after PBs is over 95%."
That literally means that when given the choice between going on cross-sex hormones and resuming their birth-sex puberty, 95% of young people who go on puberty blockers choose the cross-sex hormones. Did you think it meant something different?
"amaterdam says those on the meds long term have 50% reduced life expectantly and 20X greater suicide rate. "
Compared to what, though? Compared to kids with gender dysphoria who are denied treatment? Or compared to kids who never had any gender issues in the first place?
If it's the latter (and I'm pretty sure it is), then that's a meaningless comparison. It's like saying people who are on chemotherapy have shorter life expectancy than people who aren't, so we shouldn't give cancer patients chemotherapy. The proper comparison would be between cancer patients who are on chemotherapy and cancer patients who aren't.
"the reason gender meds dont help is they are treating the wrong problem. "
I see what you are saying and I can explain it. This is a study and part of it is being left off. The children who are not put on puberty blockers and instead receive therapy and holistic approaches overwhelmingly accept their bodies after puberty and go on to be gay or straight. The children who are put on puberty blockers overwhelmingly move on to life-long medicalization and/or surgeries. It’s hard to go back for these kids once they start.
Do you have a link or citation for this study? I'm curious about how long the followup studies ran before determining the permanence of those outcomes, particularly since many people who pursue transition in middle age had shown signs of gender issues at a young age and seemingly grown out of them.
You do not under the biological impacts of not going through the correct sex puberty, at the point evolution intended. You are unaware that HRT does not behave in the way actual puberty does, thus impairing the second most extensive and development period in a human lifespan. (Pre-natal being the first.)
This ignorance is reflection in your second option. You state that if one will transition, it is better to avoid natal sex puberty. Nothing could be further from the truth! The cognitive development and reconstruction that happens during natal puberty is not replicated during HRT, nor does the proper bone mineralization process occur, leading to early onset osteoporosis. If this wasn’t enough, failure to pass through natal puberty leaves male genitals underdeveloped, literally not providing enough tissue to successfully complete genital surgery. The ONLY reason to avoid puberty is for COSMETIC reasons. #nothankyou
(BTW, unlike sex, treatment options are not dimorphic. There is a third option - natural puberty combined with therapy to help the child navigate the physical and emotional changes, and bring wholeness to mind and body.)
"You are unaware that HRT does not behave in the way actual puberty does"
Please, doctor, tell us more. How does the body know the difference between the estradiol (or testosterone) produced by its own organs and bioidentical estradiol (or testosterone) introduced from outside? Tiny luggage tags on the molecules, perhaps?
"The cognitive development and reconstruction that happens during natal puberty is not replicated during HRT, nor does the proper bone mineralization process occur, leading to early onset osteoporosis."
Again, since the only way that could happen is if the body somehow responded differently to the same molecules based on where they were manufactured, I'd love to hear your theories about how that could happen.
More likely, you're confusing puberty blockers or anti-androgens on their own with HRT. Osteoporosis results when the body is completely denied sex hormones (male or female). That can happen when people self-administer hormones without following a standard of care, the sort of thing that tends to happen more often when that's the only way they can get them.
"If this wasn’t enough, failure to pass through natal puberty leaves male genitals underdeveloped, literally not providing enough tissue to successfully complete genital surgery. "
"There is a third option - natural puberty combined with therapy to help the child navigate the physical and emotional changes, and bring wholeness to mind and body."
Your comments reveal that you do not know endocrinology. I will not respond further. Complete your fellowship in pediatric endocrinology, and then we can talk. Or, as it may be more your speed, watch I Am Jazz. Not having gone through puberty left him without adequate tissue for vagioplasty, and his butcher-cum-surgeon Marcy Bowers confirms this while also identifying that Jazz is aorgasmic now, as are all patients Bowers have treated with PB prior to Tanner stage 2.
Evidently I know more about it than you do. *shrug*
If I were wrong, you'd be able to point to the error. You haven't. I think we both know why you've chosen this moment to announce you're done replying.
Well, if in the future you ever decide you'd like to become more informed, that link will still be here for you to click. Have a great weekend!
Also, there's a couple of huge downsides actually to minors beginning puberty blockers before puberty. For one thing, many of them will never be able to have orgasms as adults. And males, if transitioned early, often do not have enough genital material to even make a neovagina, they end up basically genital-less eunuchs (part of what happened to Jazz Jennings).
Incorrect, you're buying trans propaganda. Getting double mastectomies as minors because of supposed gender dysphoria happens regularly. Bottom surgery, while uncommon in minors, does occur.
Ahhh the it's not happening. Of course it is, a reality-denier denying reality once again. We've all read stories and seen pictures of girls with their elective double mastectomy scars (remember the one that went viral with the smiling nurse beside the young girl). Now you will say it's only one instance and I'm blowing this out of proportion. It's now rarely happening.
The difficulty you mention is a euphemism for passing. Giving pre-pubescent children puberty blockers makes the surgery to give a boy a new-vagina more difficult. See Jazz Jennings. Passing is the ultimate goal so that anyone who identifies as trans can blend ins without anyone ever knowing their sex. The next issue is dating and this battle is already being waged by those activists who are actively stating that genital preferences are transphobic.
"Now you will say it's only one instance and I'm blowing this out of proportion. It's now rarely happening."
Nah, clearly you feel more passionate about this issue and are more familiar with those cases than I am. If you say it's happening more often than that, I'm not going to argue about it.
Performing those surgeries on adolescents seems like a bad idea whether they're trans or not - their bodies are still growing.
"Giving pre-pubescent children puberty blockers makes the surgery to give a boy a new-vagina more difficult."
Actually, that's not true and hasn't been for at least 25 years.
"The next issue is dating and this battle is already being waged by those activists who are actively stating that genital preferences are transphobic."
On this point, we're in total agreement. People pushing that idea are crackpots.
It seems like a lot of transactivism is not about creating a space for trans-people within cisheteronormative society but about trying to change that society in toto. This is a preposterous idea that is certainly going to bring about blowback, and yet this doesn't seem to phase the activists. Wesley attracts what might reasonably be called transphobes, but that word has undergone a Boy-Who-Cried-Wolf process such that no one now takes it seriously, when it should indeed be taken seriously. But that is inevitable, much like reasonable transactivists claim overreach from their "side" is inevitable in the push to make society more accepting of transpeople.
When activists make claims that it is one's moral duty to state one's pronouns and suchlike, that entire "project," nebulous though it may be, creates a lot of reaction that ends up bringing actual transphobes into the picture. I've noticed that transactivists don't hold up Jan Morris or Deirdre McCloskey as icons - neither shared their aim, which is full-scale societal liquidation of the supposed white colonialist legacy of the gender binary.
As far as I can tell (I could be wrong) transgenderism is rather rare, and yet it's being treated as if it's a proper subject of discussion in kindergarten, in order to be inclusive of any potential transsexuals in the kindergarten class. That people are going to react negatively to this is predictable. Judgement has to be made, and using said judgement, I think they're right to complain, considering the content of some of the material activists have introduced.
It doesn't make much sense to me that this issue should be approached in the way it's being approached, not unless there is a broader objective here, which of course there is: the destruction of cisheteronormativity. I'd like to know what you think about Jonathan Rauch's piece in American Purpose https://www.americanpurpose.com/articles/walking-the-transgender-movement-away-from-the-extremists/
And if you expressed your opinion on SB107, I missed it. The push for total "equality" always ends by rights running up against other rights, with some giving way to others. Equality and liberty are in a kind of tension, as Arendt wrote about and many before her, notably David Hume, discussed. When free speech is a value but conflicts with the sensitivities of a victim class, actual or self-proclaimed, the sensitivities are winning out. Many liberals excuse all of this as the inevitable difficulties societies must confront as people demand that their identity and their dignity gain equal footing. I deeply disagree with this. Wokeness reminds me of what the late James Billington wrote about in "Fire in the Minds of Men"; it's a revolutionary faith.
And I wonder what you think about the idea of a social contagion. One sees this with Tourette's. Why not with trans-identity? In actual practice, the way children are inculcated with activist-approved material guides them to see cisgenderism negatively (this is my hunch). I realize that activists deeply despise Abigail Shrier, but it's overwhelmingly likely that a contagion is happening. And we shouldn't be creating situations like this for kids.
The thing that strikes me the most is the power of this movement, which cannot have that many people within its ranks. Transactivists have great sway in our society, and we're up in arms about their activities, and we're talking about a phenomenon that affects a tiny number of people. You've said you aren't here to defend the outlandish claims made by activists, but are you contending that such claims aren't representative? I think they are. However that may be, their demands grow as their successes mount. And escalatory behavior is obligatory given the nature of the activist endgame.
this question has been answered. sweden and finland say early transition does more harm than good for most. they did systematic reviews of the evidence. they also have been providing gender care as long as anyone. this is critical since it can take 10 years for regreters to experiemce some of the severe harms. ppl who make these positive claims after a year or two anonymously should be discounted. the US gov refuses to do a review since they know they will find the same thing - the bad outweighs the good.
The issue is not the veracity/accuracy of the linkage between the use puberty blockers and subsequent cross-sex hormone treatment. Rather, it is because, for good or ilk, the connection IS so high (95%). This degree of treatment progression means that consent for puberty blockers must also address what will very likely be the phase 2 of their treatment, and such consent must address all the risks that the combination of PB and HRT entail. This is not happening - instead, puberty blockers are positioned as a benign no-harm-done treatment when the facts on the ground show it behaves as step one to lifelong medicalization.
I wrote the above and then reread the last paragraph. I now regret attempting to answer in good faith, as anyone who brushes off the sterilization of minor children with the shrug of “they know what they’re doing” has a deranged POV. These. Are. Children. And this is STERILIZATION.
BTW, I have yet to read a single trans-person description of human reproduction that is factually accurate, and many are actually incomprehensible. The entire gender ideology is just that - a faith-based ideology, and unrelated to science. Don’t believe me? Let’s try a test.
1. True/False - Humans are a sexually dimorphic species - aka, there are only two sexes, male and female.
2. True/False - Very infrequently, some people are born with Disorders of Sexual Development (DSDs). Although referred to as “intersex’, these individuals are still either males or females.
3. True/ False - Sex is immutable. No one can ever change their biological sex.
How did you do? These three core facts are even more fundamental and straightforward than reproduction. If someone doesn’t understand that these are true (thus leaving no reason to think that a male can become a female or vice versa), they are highly unlikely to be genuinely informed of their pending infertility and sexual dysfunction - just ask Marcy Bowers for the deets.
"This is not happening - instead, puberty blockers are positioned as a benign no-harm-done treatment when the facts on the ground show it behaves as step one to lifelong medicalization."
Think about what that means, though. If almost everyone given puberty blockers goes on to choose cross-sex hormones, that means the system is being appropriately selective in deciding who to give puberty blockers to: it's giving them to almost no one who isn't trans.
On the other hand, if only 5% of young people given puberty blockers went on to choose cross-sex hormones, that would mean most of them aren't trans.
In other words, the criteria for giving puberty blockers are actually working quite well. If anything, perhaps they could stand to be loosened.
"This degree of treatment progression means that consent for puberty blockers must also address what will very likely be the phase 2 of their treatment, and such consent must address all the risks that the combination of PB and HRT entail."
Well, no, because that's not how the causality works. Puberty blockers don't *make* kids trans.
Puberty blockers essentially fill the role of a medical test for transgender identity: we aren't sure if young children really know what their gender identities are, so we give them a few more years to think about it. If they still want to go on cross-sex hormones a few years later, that means they've tested positive. If not, they've tested negative.
Imagine, then, if we applied the same anti-blockers logic to other types of tests: "Don't let them test your child's blood sugar! The diabetes lobby just wants to get your kids hooked on insulin!" Absurd, right? They either have the condition or they don't, regardless of whether you test for it. If they have it, then the only thing you really get to decide is whether to detect it early or late.
"These. Are. Children. And this is STERILIZATION."
Yeah, it's unfortunate. Some recent advances have been made in preserving fertility for trans boys (FTM) who start on puberty blockers, though. Are you actually interested in preserving their fertility rather than just preventing their transition? If so, I'd be happy to tell you more.
"Don’t believe me? Let’s try a test."
OK. Here are my answers:
1. True, humans are a sexually dimorphic species.
2. True, people born with intersex conditions are either male or female.
3. True, sex is immutable.
That was too easy. Got anything tougher?
Listen, I'm as sick of the gender ideologues as you are. I roll my eyes when a website asks for my gender by giving me a drop box with 27 options, or when a famous quote is butchered by changing "women" to "birthing people". And if you were opposing that nonsense *while also* being compassionate and accommodating toward the people whose unwavering desire to live in the role of members of the opposite gender has been studied for decades, I'd be marching right beside you.
Why the fuck should we be "compassionate" to people who want to violate the social contract around sex and the boundaries of members of the opposite sex? who the hell are you to enable this? Who the hell are you to claim there is such thing as a "trans child" as though humans can be born in the wrong body?
>the people whose unwavering desire to live in the role of members of the opposite gender
Nope they wish to "live as" what their perception of the opposite SEX is. "gender" is nonsense if anything is nothing more than sex stereotypes. This population includes extremely damaged and dangerous people, sexual deviants.
Puberty is not a disease. the fact that you wish to tamper with children's natural maturation is sick. What's going on in their mind is the problem. Indeed, perhaps society's expectations of them as members of their sex could be contributing. What aren't wrong is their bodies
"Who the hell are you to claim there is such thing as a "trans child" as though humans can be born in the wrong body?"
I'm just someone who understands that the genetic code for all of the human traits that are differentiated by sex is present in the DNA of both men and women.
For example, most men are attracted to women, and most women are attracted to men, but that isn't because women have different DNA for attraction than men. We're all born with the genes for both types of attraction, but during development, some of those genes are activated and others are deactivated through a delicate process mediated by hormones.
Sometimes those developmental processes are disturbed, and a boy's brain develops in a way that will eventually produce a pattern of attraction typical for women instead of men.
The same goes for essentially everything else that separates men from women at birth. Mountains of research has shown an innate preference for certain activities, toys, and interactions that differs between male and female babies -- or at least most of them. Sometimes a baby is born with the opposite sex's preferences instead.
That even extends to semi-conscious preferences that are harder to observe, like whether they'll look to men or women as role models, or whether they'll see other boys or girls as peers and feel the need to fit in with them. It isn't just a coincidence that most boys want to do what they see other boys doing, or get upset when they're mistaken for girls - it's the genetic basis for more complex behaviors related to gender roles and mate selection. But sometimes girls are born with that neural circuitry activated instead.
Sometimes when this happens to one trait, it also happens to other traits, because a change in the prenatal environment affected multiple parts of the body or brain. For example, there are observable physical traits that tend to be associated with sexual orientation or gender identity.
"Born in the wrong body" is a poor description of what's going on. They're born in bodies that developed by following some steps from plan "A" and the rest from plan "B", instead of sticking entirely to one or the other.
"Nope they wish to 'live as' what their perception of the opposite SEX is. 'gender' is nonsense if anything is nothing more than sex stereotypes."
*shrug* Call it whatever you want. I use the word "gender" to refer to the social, cultural aspects we use to detect a person's sex without having to directly observe their reproductive organs, gametes, or chromosomes.
"What's going on in their mind is the problem."
Yes, I agree. But the evidence so far suggests that what's going on in their mind is no longer mutable: you can't change someone's gender identity after they're born any more than you can change their sexual orientation. So the only way to effectively mitigate the problem is for them to change their appearance, behavior, etc. to align with what's going on in their mind. If you discover another effective treatment, lots of people would love to hear about it.
the is no such thing as "gender identity" as some sort of inalienable trait. it is not some sort of pathology that the personalities of both sexes have overlaps. effeminate boys and tomboyish girls are just that...not some sort of "gender" category avatars .and again, we shouldn't be invalidating all social contracts with respect to sex just to indulge the identity disturbances of these cases
"the is no such thing as "gender identity" as some sort of inalienable trait. "
Yes, I agree.
There are *many different* traits that emerge during development as part of the sex differentiation of the brain directed by prenatal hormones, and they all contribute to the patterns of behavior and thought that are associated with each sex. This biology exists in other species -- when lions and lionesses behave differently, it's not because they're picking up stereotypes from TV -- and we shouldn't be surprised that it exists in humans too.
you omit that 85% of kids with dysphoria grow out of it without meds. this fact makes all your points moot. once they start the meds many are permanantly harmed. this harm is avoidable. none of this can be considered in isolation. kids are sold the lie that gender care will make their life easier. obviously its tough being a kid and mamy will take any course harmful or not just to address normal youth issues. some just want to piss off their parents. gay kids often have dysphoria as a normal part of being gay. homephobic adults are lying to them telling them theyre born in the wrong body and pushing them to sterilize themselves. this is what you are supporting - homophobes and profiteers who found a way to profit off normal kid issues.
"you omit that 85% of kids with dysphoria grow out of it without meds."
How do you determine whether they've grown out of it - by whether they still pursue transition at age 18? A lot of the people who pursue transition in their 30s, 40s, 50s, and older had previously experienced, and seemingly grown out of, gender issues in their youth.
kids certainly have no clue what life long sterilization means. none can imagine that one day they may wish to have kids. many on the meds will never even have an orgasm as a resault. think kids are aware of what any of this will mean to them as an adult? of course not. becuase they cant imagine being an adult. a 10 year old would be dead in a week if their parents werent constantly reminding them to watch for cars. add to this big biz and activists are creating a constant flood of lies that kids and adults both believe. the blockers are reversable if taken for their intended purpose. but when taken for gender id 95% go on to sterilzing gender meds. even the pres of the US is lying about this. do gender meds help anything? no they dont. UK, sweden finland all looked and found zero benefit resulted from taking gender meds. the pres of the US is lying about this too. if biden can be fooled why cant a kid? the truth will eventually trickle to even the dumbest person. in the meantime big biz wants to get as many people on the meds they can. each becoming life long lab rats earning millions in profits for big biz. 85% of kids grow out of dysphoria with unmedicated puberty. theres no way to tell which ones will desist. we know most with dysphoria are gay, had trama, were abused or autistic. literially their issues have nothing to do with gender. gender care makes their issues worse, since their real issues go unaddressed. maybe thats why amsterdam says those on gender care have 50% reduced life expectancy. the care doesnt work. but its easy to trick kids into it and make a buck doing so
"kids certainly have no clue what life long sterilization means."
You don't really believe that, do you? They know what sterilization means. They know what "life long" means. Combining those two concepts is certainly within the ability of anyone who's old enough to learn algebra.
"the blockers are reversable if taken for their intended purpose. but when taken for gender id 95% go on to sterilzing gender meds."
When taken for gender identity, they're still every bit as reversible. You seem to be confusing "reversible" for "actually will be reversed", though.
What you're really saying is that 95% of the time, the kids *choose not to* reverse them because they *don't want* to go through their birth-sex puberty; even after being given a few years to consider the consequences, it turns out they still prefer to go on cross-sex hormones instead.
"do gender meds help anything? no they dont."
Of course they do. For instance: "We sought to systematically review the effect of gender-affirming hormone therapy on psychological outcomes among transgender people. [...] Hormone therapy was associated with increased QOL [quality of life], decreased depression, and decreased anxiety." (https://academic.oup.com/jes/article/5/4/bvab011/6126016)
"we know most with dysphoria are gay, had trama, were abused or autistic."
It's no surprise that conditions linked to prenatal hormone exposure such as homosexuality, autism, and gender dysphoria often occur together. Is your proposal to treat those other conditions somehow and hope the gender dysphoria goes away? What's the success rate of curing homosexuality and autism?
the study you posted is typical of propaganda the gender biz uses to claim gender meds work. they dont. in this case you posted the results of a meta analysis of 22 studys. of these 18 were of low quality. that means their results cant be used as evidence of anything. three were of medium quality. and one was very low quality. all were simply self reports of ppl after 3 to 12 months on meds. really meaningless. after a couple years on meds people do severly worse. all were given phych assistance during this time, so any improvements were likely due to the phych help and not related at all to the meds. most people who take the meds arent getting any phych help so these studys cant be used to justify gender meds, unless you require ppl to also get phych help. but gender activists have made getting phych help illegal fraudulently calling it conversions therapy.
also, you wrong confate being gay with gender dysphoria. the two are nothing alike. being gay is a sexuality. being trans id is not. kids typically desist from dysphoria without meds. being gay is immutable, like being a women or an ethical minority. trans id is often a choice that can change day to day. stonewall wants trans id ppl to be able to change their prounouns each and every day.
"in this case you posted the results of a meta analysis of 22 studys. of these 18 were of low quality. that means their results cant be used as evidence of anything."
Nope, that's not what it means. The *strength* of those studies was low, which means the probability that their results are wrong is greater than it would be with stronger studies. That's one reason to do a meta-analysis in the first place: to see how reproducible those results are.
If you flip a coin 10 times and get 7 heads, that's weak evidence for the hypothesis that the coin is biased. If ten people flip the coin 10 times each, and out of 100 flips they get 70 heads, that's stronger evidence.
"after a couple years on meds people do severly worse."
Really? I'd love to see the data backing that up.
"but gender activists have made getting phych help illegal fraudulently calling it conversions therapy."
No, they haven't. There are still plenty of mental health providers who offer gender counseling, and plenty of doctors that require a mental health referral letter before they'll prescribe hormones.
Conversion therapy is something completely different.
"also, you wrong confate being gay with gender dysphoria. the two are nothing alike. being gay is a sexuality. being trans id is not."
Therefore, it's no surprise these conditions often occur together.
"trans id is often a choice that can change day to day. stonewall wants trans id ppl to be able to change their prounouns each and every day."
Yes, I agree there are a lot of militant crazies making wild claims with no plausible link to biology. I'm not going to defend that crap. But I certainly will defend the more rational claims, backed by decades of evidence, of people who want to move from one binary sex to the other and who experience clear benefits when they're able to do so.
the gender industry uses meta analysis to claim gender care works when it doesnt. its a carefully crafted tool designed to create a media headline and make it difficult to check how they arrived at that headline. you seem very impressed by this. the nations of UK, sweden finland aren't. they looked carefully at all this evidence and say its garbage. yet here you are trying to sell a bag of crap and telling me its a box of gold bricks. the problem is people pushing your idea have no credibility. every gender industry stat, study slogan and claim is a lie. no, trans id kids dont commit suicide more than other kids with similar non gender related issues, no , gender meds and gender care dont help anything. theres no evidence it does. every gender industry claim is based on meaningless online polls or 12 months of scketchy data. since thats such a huge joke they sometimes use the meta analysis to make it more difficult to check what a fraud it is. the meta analysis use cherry picked studys and misrepresent the data. its all part of the con.
"after a couple years on meds people do severly worse."
"Really? I'd love to see the data backing that up."
every gender industry study, 100s of them, are low quality or very low quality and always end at 18 months with average follow up of 12 months. these studys arent simply doing science. they are attempting to show a pre determined conclution. this is venture capitalism for by venture capitalists. they certainly could do studys with medium or high quality wirh longer follow up. but that would show gender care doesnt work. so instead its all about the headlines. they keep creating these headlines that gender care works, when theres no evidence it does. so now they no longer say theres evidence gender care works. instead they say theres a "concensous" . but thats not true either. ppl pushing gender ideology do so by ignoring all evidence of what a fraud it is, lying their asses off non stop saying it works and ignoring anyone and everything that wont join their well financed cult of which you obiously are a part, most likely employed at the aclu or similar stooge group getting 30 pieces of silver for your efforts.
this very week the american adacemy of pediatrics continued their stance there be no systematic review of the benefits of gender care. they know if that were done the results would show that all the studys pushed by the gender industry are complete crap, which was found by other such reviews.
So what you're saying is, your claim that "after a couple years on meds people do severly worse" isn't backed up by any evidence at all, you just made it up?
Yes, we absolutely believe that children DO NOT understand the implications of life-long sterility. They may correctly think it means they can never have kids, but what they don’t know, cannot know, is what will be their desire for biological children when they are adults? A child, particularly one who has had an unstable or traumatic or abusive background, may be happy at 13 to think they will never be responsible for children of their own. But their goals and desires could be very different a decade or more later, and a child cannot make a fertility decision on behalf of the adult they will become, but do not yet know.
Yes, it's certainly true that people may regret the decisions they made when they were younger. But more often, they regret the decisions other people forced on them when they were younger.
i know life is tough and gender id seems like an easy answer. i suggest you talk it out with a therapist and talk about how you are blaming your parents for many issues. sometimes it helps to speak with others who are qualified and have experience with similar situations.
Scott Weiner is a groomer who also decriminalized knowingly infecting someone with AIDS. Commiefornia's entire ruling class and education system is rotten to its core: https://yuribezmenov.substack.com/p/how-to-appoint-a-commissar-parts
I'm sick and tired of your both sides-ism Lisa. If Republican or conservative laws have gone too far, it's because they have been backed into a corner by gender ideologues and Democrats who seen any and all boundaries are oppressive. Transitioning children is abusive and barbaric. Our sons are being made eunuchs and our daughters breasts are being cut off all in the name of progressivism. Banning transition for those under 18 is absolutely necessary. Gender ideology and the transgenderism movement has radicalized me and I now oppose any transition, including for adults. It paves the way for this barbarity. No doctor would amputate the leg of a person with chronic and intense knee pain, yet here we are, mutilating, amputating and sterilizing the bodies of children.
I agree that its criminal to be stealing a child’s future fertility, sexual function, intact body. The republicans wouldn’t have to enact such laws, but this barbaric practice being done has forced them into it. Who in their right thinking mind can condone such practices on innocent children? We are supposed to protect the most vulnerable and instead we are butchering them and it’s legal!!!!! It’s horrific and what choice do the states that don’t want this legal have? No state should even have to make these laws. It should be self evident that this is insane and goes against the very nature of humankind.
This post is a first-rate contribution to understanding the truth of "where we are." Thank you. For all that it says, it points to much more.
This bill would invite matching but opposite bills in TX and etc that would license parents to kidnap their own children away of custodial agreements if they didn’t want them treated. And the incentive for the parent to lie in that case would be even greater - they don’t even have to pretend the kid is GD or seek treatmwnt, just claim that the other parent will do so. The natural end point of this arms race is that whoever runs off with the kid first wins.
No matter what you think of pediatric gender medicine, this seems like a disastrous idea. I genuinely find it hard to believe that California is so consumed with red-blue culture war stuff that they’d even consider a bill like this, with all its obvious consequences.
“California is so consumed with red-blue culture war stuff” that performative legislation like SB 107 is now the entire governing model of the entrenched Democratic power structure. And Gavin Newsom is almost 100% responsible. He’s convinced that stunts like this are his ticket to the Presidency in 2024.
Astonishing the number of issues this proposed legislation raises. Legally and politically, it is a more radical act of secession than was "Sanctuary Cities." From a philosophical perspective, the degree of pseudo-revolutionary rationalism divorced from reality is astonishing, and clarifies further the the irrational(ist) endpoints of this (ideological) "process." Truly, reality itself has become "reactionary."
Ya they might as well call it the "F*ck You and Your Constitution" bill. It's like they actively want a civil war.
Gavin Newsom’s entrenched California Democratic power machine has declared all-out war on the U.S. constitution. In addition to the atrocities documented here in SB 107, California has already passed a slew of so-called gun control bills that are blatantly unconstitutional. SB 1327 mirrored Texas’s SB 8 but for gun sellers instead of abortionists. And AB 2571 criminalized all speech about guns—in direct violation of the First Amendment.
Newsom believes these stunts will guarantee him the White House in 2024. And the rest of the Democrats—probably correctly—are convinced that this is how they can best ensure re-election.
Thanks for all you are writing about. It’s appreciated and also terrifying.
Well this is timely. I just read that the Tavistock gender affirming clinic for children in the UK is shutting down because it has been deemed unsafe for children. The UK has been completely captured by trans ideology so this is huge.
Instead of rushing children into life-altering treatment on puberty blockers it will be replaced by regional centres at existing children’s hospitals offering more holistic care” with “strong links to mental health services”.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/e1ed2bea-0e63-11ed-93cf-b011fa7fe86b?shareToken=4fa557c3083dee141defde72e0e53d54
Absolute insanity...who the hell are these ghouls?!
Might be one of your strongest pieces yet, Lisa. Thanks to you and Wesley.
Big Weiner strikes again.
"Are they aware that, for instance, puberty blockers are increasingly seen not as a pause button on puberty, giving time to explore, but an initial step in lifelong medicalization; in many studies, the number of young people who go on to cross-sex hormones after PBs is over 95%."
This seems disingenuous. First, the two contrasting parts of the claim aren't actually in conflict with each other: puberty blockers are presented as a pause button on puberty, giving time to explore, *and then* 95% of young people who are given that opportunity to explore decide that transition is the right choice for themselves.
Are we supposed to believe that this comes as a surprise to the young people involved? That if they had known they were eventually going to choose transition, they would've preferred not to go on puberty blockers in the first place?
The implication is that 95% is too high. What percentage of young people on puberty blockers do you believe "should" choose transition eventually?
"Are they aware of the link between cross-sex hormones in pubescent bodies and infertility?"
If they know anything at all about how human reproduction works, then yes, they're aware that after transition they'll be infertile. These kids aren't stupid.
Children do not have the maturity to make life-altering, irreversible decisions that will impact them in numerous ways forever. Cutting off healthy body parts and destroying your body is not OK, even if you are fully aware of the results.
Dear Mama Bear, we have an obligation to witness the truth, as you are doing. I am guessing that you also know that committed ideologists will always find "their truth," and that only real-world disaster will terminate their influence, after much suffering by others. They themselves will die in the bunker or blend back into the population after their reign comes to an end. Reality reasserts itself - as with Lysenko during Soviet times - but always after prolonged immiseration. We have seemingly entered such a tragic phase of misrule.
Madness combined with moralism is an appalling sort of beast.
Children aren't candidates for surgery anyway, so that's a non-problem. At that age, the treatment options are:
(1) Give them puberty blockers for now, and when they're older, let them choose whether to continue their birth-sex puberty or start cross-sex hormones
or
(2) Do nothing and let their birth-sex puberty run its course
The issue with #2, of course, is that if it eventually turns out they'd prefer to transition -- and it sounds like that would be the case, up to 95% of the time -- then having gone through their birth-sex puberty will make that much more difficult and expensive when it happens.
they dont need surgery to be permanently sterilized. the meds do that. youre lying when you say most kids with dysphoria prefer to transition. 85% ID again as their birth gender and their dysphoria goes away with puberty. even for the 15% of kids who choose to ID as another gender, theres no evidence this helps them in the long term. amaterdam says those on the meds long term have 50% reduced life expectantly and 20X greater suicide rate. the reason gender meds dont help is they are treating the wrong problem. most kids who ID as trans are simply gay, were abused, had trama or are autistic. their issues have nothing to do with gender. thats why gender care doesnt work.
"they dont need surgery to be permanently sterilized. the meds do that."
Cross-sex hormones do that; puberty blockers don't. Puberty blockers are reversible.
"youre lying when you say most kids with dysphoria prefer to transition."
I got that number directly from the article we're commenting on, so if I'm lying, so is the original author.
I mean, that's exactly what it says: "the number of young people who go on to cross-sex hormones after PBs is over 95%."
That literally means that when given the choice between going on cross-sex hormones and resuming their birth-sex puberty, 95% of young people who go on puberty blockers choose the cross-sex hormones. Did you think it meant something different?
"amaterdam says those on the meds long term have 50% reduced life expectantly and 20X greater suicide rate. "
Compared to what, though? Compared to kids with gender dysphoria who are denied treatment? Or compared to kids who never had any gender issues in the first place?
If it's the latter (and I'm pretty sure it is), then that's a meaningless comparison. It's like saying people who are on chemotherapy have shorter life expectancy than people who aren't, so we shouldn't give cancer patients chemotherapy. The proper comparison would be between cancer patients who are on chemotherapy and cancer patients who aren't.
"the reason gender meds dont help is they are treating the wrong problem. "
Except the statistics show that they do help.
I see what you are saying and I can explain it. This is a study and part of it is being left off. The children who are not put on puberty blockers and instead receive therapy and holistic approaches overwhelmingly accept their bodies after puberty and go on to be gay or straight. The children who are put on puberty blockers overwhelmingly move on to life-long medicalization and/or surgeries. It’s hard to go back for these kids once they start.
Do you have a link or citation for this study? I'm curious about how long the followup studies ran before determining the permanence of those outcomes, particularly since many people who pursue transition in middle age had shown signs of gender issues at a young age and seemingly grown out of them.
You do not under the biological impacts of not going through the correct sex puberty, at the point evolution intended. You are unaware that HRT does not behave in the way actual puberty does, thus impairing the second most extensive and development period in a human lifespan. (Pre-natal being the first.)
This ignorance is reflection in your second option. You state that if one will transition, it is better to avoid natal sex puberty. Nothing could be further from the truth! The cognitive development and reconstruction that happens during natal puberty is not replicated during HRT, nor does the proper bone mineralization process occur, leading to early onset osteoporosis. If this wasn’t enough, failure to pass through natal puberty leaves male genitals underdeveloped, literally not providing enough tissue to successfully complete genital surgery. The ONLY reason to avoid puberty is for COSMETIC reasons. #nothankyou
(BTW, unlike sex, treatment options are not dimorphic. There is a third option - natural puberty combined with therapy to help the child navigate the physical and emotional changes, and bring wholeness to mind and body.)
"You are unaware that HRT does not behave in the way actual puberty does"
Please, doctor, tell us more. How does the body know the difference between the estradiol (or testosterone) produced by its own organs and bioidentical estradiol (or testosterone) introduced from outside? Tiny luggage tags on the molecules, perhaps?
"The cognitive development and reconstruction that happens during natal puberty is not replicated during HRT, nor does the proper bone mineralization process occur, leading to early onset osteoporosis."
Again, since the only way that could happen is if the body somehow responded differently to the same molecules based on where they were manufactured, I'd love to hear your theories about how that could happen.
More likely, you're confusing puberty blockers or anti-androgens on their own with HRT. Osteoporosis results when the body is completely denied sex hormones (male or female). That can happen when people self-administer hormones without following a standard of care, the sort of thing that tends to happen more often when that's the only way they can get them.
"If this wasn’t enough, failure to pass through natal puberty leaves male genitals underdeveloped, literally not providing enough tissue to successfully complete genital surgery. "
That's not true, and hasn't been for at least 25 years. If you'd like to brush up on your knowledge of surgical technique, doctor, might I suggest starting here: https://genderanalysis.net/2018/12/use-of-puberty-blockers-in-transgender-girls-effects-on-genital-tissue-development-and-vaginoplasty-options/
"There is a third option - natural puberty combined with therapy to help the child navigate the physical and emotional changes, and bring wholeness to mind and body."
Fascinating. What's the success rate?
Your comments reveal that you do not know endocrinology. I will not respond further. Complete your fellowship in pediatric endocrinology, and then we can talk. Or, as it may be more your speed, watch I Am Jazz. Not having gone through puberty left him without adequate tissue for vagioplasty, and his butcher-cum-surgeon Marcy Bowers confirms this while also identifying that Jazz is aorgasmic now, as are all patients Bowers have treated with PB prior to Tanner stage 2.
Evidently I know more about it than you do. *shrug*
If I were wrong, you'd be able to point to the error. You haven't. I think we both know why you've chosen this moment to announce you're done replying.
Well, if in the future you ever decide you'd like to become more informed, that link will still be here for you to click. Have a great weekend!
Also, there's a couple of huge downsides actually to minors beginning puberty blockers before puberty. For one thing, many of them will never be able to have orgasms as adults. And males, if transitioned early, often do not have enough genital material to even make a neovagina, they end up basically genital-less eunuchs (part of what happened to Jazz Jennings).
Incorrect, you're buying trans propaganda. Getting double mastectomies as minors because of supposed gender dysphoria happens regularly. Bottom surgery, while uncommon in minors, does occur.
Stop calling it bottom surgery and hiding what is happening. It is castration and removal of the penis.
Ahhh the it's not happening. Of course it is, a reality-denier denying reality once again. We've all read stories and seen pictures of girls with their elective double mastectomy scars (remember the one that went viral with the smiling nurse beside the young girl). Now you will say it's only one instance and I'm blowing this out of proportion. It's now rarely happening.
The difficulty you mention is a euphemism for passing. Giving pre-pubescent children puberty blockers makes the surgery to give a boy a new-vagina more difficult. See Jazz Jennings. Passing is the ultimate goal so that anyone who identifies as trans can blend ins without anyone ever knowing their sex. The next issue is dating and this battle is already being waged by those activists who are actively stating that genital preferences are transphobic.
"Now you will say it's only one instance and I'm blowing this out of proportion. It's now rarely happening."
Nah, clearly you feel more passionate about this issue and are more familiar with those cases than I am. If you say it's happening more often than that, I'm not going to argue about it.
Performing those surgeries on adolescents seems like a bad idea whether they're trans or not - their bodies are still growing.
"Giving pre-pubescent children puberty blockers makes the surgery to give a boy a new-vagina more difficult."
Actually, that's not true and hasn't been for at least 25 years.
It makes *one particular surgical technique* more difficult, but there are other techniques. Those techniques are sometimes used even for people who've never taken puberty blockers, because the tissue can atrophy in the absence of testosterone. If you'd like to learn more, this goes into the details: https://genderanalysis.net/2018/12/use-of-puberty-blockers-in-transgender-girls-effects-on-genital-tissue-development-and-vaginoplasty-options/
"The next issue is dating and this battle is already being waged by those activists who are actively stating that genital preferences are transphobic."
On this point, we're in total agreement. People pushing that idea are crackpots.
It seems like a lot of transactivism is not about creating a space for trans-people within cisheteronormative society but about trying to change that society in toto. This is a preposterous idea that is certainly going to bring about blowback, and yet this doesn't seem to phase the activists. Wesley attracts what might reasonably be called transphobes, but that word has undergone a Boy-Who-Cried-Wolf process such that no one now takes it seriously, when it should indeed be taken seriously. But that is inevitable, much like reasonable transactivists claim overreach from their "side" is inevitable in the push to make society more accepting of transpeople.
When activists make claims that it is one's moral duty to state one's pronouns and suchlike, that entire "project," nebulous though it may be, creates a lot of reaction that ends up bringing actual transphobes into the picture. I've noticed that transactivists don't hold up Jan Morris or Deirdre McCloskey as icons - neither shared their aim, which is full-scale societal liquidation of the supposed white colonialist legacy of the gender binary.
As far as I can tell (I could be wrong) transgenderism is rather rare, and yet it's being treated as if it's a proper subject of discussion in kindergarten, in order to be inclusive of any potential transsexuals in the kindergarten class. That people are going to react negatively to this is predictable. Judgement has to be made, and using said judgement, I think they're right to complain, considering the content of some of the material activists have introduced.
It doesn't make much sense to me that this issue should be approached in the way it's being approached, not unless there is a broader objective here, which of course there is: the destruction of cisheteronormativity. I'd like to know what you think about Jonathan Rauch's piece in American Purpose https://www.americanpurpose.com/articles/walking-the-transgender-movement-away-from-the-extremists/
And if you expressed your opinion on SB107, I missed it. The push for total "equality" always ends by rights running up against other rights, with some giving way to others. Equality and liberty are in a kind of tension, as Arendt wrote about and many before her, notably David Hume, discussed. When free speech is a value but conflicts with the sensitivities of a victim class, actual or self-proclaimed, the sensitivities are winning out. Many liberals excuse all of this as the inevitable difficulties societies must confront as people demand that their identity and their dignity gain equal footing. I deeply disagree with this. Wokeness reminds me of what the late James Billington wrote about in "Fire in the Minds of Men"; it's a revolutionary faith.
And I wonder what you think about the idea of a social contagion. One sees this with Tourette's. Why not with trans-identity? In actual practice, the way children are inculcated with activist-approved material guides them to see cisgenderism negatively (this is my hunch). I realize that activists deeply despise Abigail Shrier, but it's overwhelmingly likely that a contagion is happening. And we shouldn't be creating situations like this for kids.
The thing that strikes me the most is the power of this movement, which cannot have that many people within its ranks. Transactivists have great sway in our society, and we're up in arms about their activities, and we're talking about a phenomenon that affects a tiny number of people. You've said you aren't here to defend the outlandish claims made by activists, but are you contending that such claims aren't representative? I think they are. However that may be, their demands grow as their successes mount. And escalatory behavior is obligatory given the nature of the activist endgame.
Which choice do we make? The one that protects the regrettable transition or the ones who would rather they did it younger???
this question has been answered. sweden and finland say early transition does more harm than good for most. they did systematic reviews of the evidence. they also have been providing gender care as long as anyone. this is critical since it can take 10 years for regreters to experiemce some of the severe harms. ppl who make these positive claims after a year or two anonymously should be discounted. the US gov refuses to do a review since they know they will find the same thing - the bad outweighs the good.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/wpde.com/amp/news/nation-world/pediatric-group-accused-of-silencing-debate-about-affirmative-care-for-trans-youth
Agreed. 🙏
I think I was responding to a different commenter.
The issue is not the veracity/accuracy of the linkage between the use puberty blockers and subsequent cross-sex hormone treatment. Rather, it is because, for good or ilk, the connection IS so high (95%). This degree of treatment progression means that consent for puberty blockers must also address what will very likely be the phase 2 of their treatment, and such consent must address all the risks that the combination of PB and HRT entail. This is not happening - instead, puberty blockers are positioned as a benign no-harm-done treatment when the facts on the ground show it behaves as step one to lifelong medicalization.
I wrote the above and then reread the last paragraph. I now regret attempting to answer in good faith, as anyone who brushes off the sterilization of minor children with the shrug of “they know what they’re doing” has a deranged POV. These. Are. Children. And this is STERILIZATION.
BTW, I have yet to read a single trans-person description of human reproduction that is factually accurate, and many are actually incomprehensible. The entire gender ideology is just that - a faith-based ideology, and unrelated to science. Don’t believe me? Let’s try a test.
1. True/False - Humans are a sexually dimorphic species - aka, there are only two sexes, male and female.
2. True/False - Very infrequently, some people are born with Disorders of Sexual Development (DSDs). Although referred to as “intersex’, these individuals are still either males or females.
3. True/ False - Sex is immutable. No one can ever change their biological sex.
How did you do? These three core facts are even more fundamental and straightforward than reproduction. If someone doesn’t understand that these are true (thus leaving no reason to think that a male can become a female or vice versa), they are highly unlikely to be genuinely informed of their pending infertility and sexual dysfunction - just ask Marcy Bowers for the deets.
"This is not happening - instead, puberty blockers are positioned as a benign no-harm-done treatment when the facts on the ground show it behaves as step one to lifelong medicalization."
Think about what that means, though. If almost everyone given puberty blockers goes on to choose cross-sex hormones, that means the system is being appropriately selective in deciding who to give puberty blockers to: it's giving them to almost no one who isn't trans.
On the other hand, if only 5% of young people given puberty blockers went on to choose cross-sex hormones, that would mean most of them aren't trans.
In other words, the criteria for giving puberty blockers are actually working quite well. If anything, perhaps they could stand to be loosened.
"This degree of treatment progression means that consent for puberty blockers must also address what will very likely be the phase 2 of their treatment, and such consent must address all the risks that the combination of PB and HRT entail."
Well, no, because that's not how the causality works. Puberty blockers don't *make* kids trans.
Puberty blockers essentially fill the role of a medical test for transgender identity: we aren't sure if young children really know what their gender identities are, so we give them a few more years to think about it. If they still want to go on cross-sex hormones a few years later, that means they've tested positive. If not, they've tested negative.
Imagine, then, if we applied the same anti-blockers logic to other types of tests: "Don't let them test your child's blood sugar! The diabetes lobby just wants to get your kids hooked on insulin!" Absurd, right? They either have the condition or they don't, regardless of whether you test for it. If they have it, then the only thing you really get to decide is whether to detect it early or late.
"These. Are. Children. And this is STERILIZATION."
Yeah, it's unfortunate. Some recent advances have been made in preserving fertility for trans boys (FTM) who start on puberty blockers, though. Are you actually interested in preserving their fertility rather than just preventing their transition? If so, I'd be happy to tell you more.
"Don’t believe me? Let’s try a test."
OK. Here are my answers:
1. True, humans are a sexually dimorphic species.
2. True, people born with intersex conditions are either male or female.
3. True, sex is immutable.
That was too easy. Got anything tougher?
Listen, I'm as sick of the gender ideologues as you are. I roll my eyes when a website asks for my gender by giving me a drop box with 27 options, or when a famous quote is butchered by changing "women" to "birthing people". And if you were opposing that nonsense *while also* being compassionate and accommodating toward the people whose unwavering desire to live in the role of members of the opposite gender has been studied for decades, I'd be marching right beside you.
Why the fuck should we be "compassionate" to people who want to violate the social contract around sex and the boundaries of members of the opposite sex? who the hell are you to enable this? Who the hell are you to claim there is such thing as a "trans child" as though humans can be born in the wrong body?
>the people whose unwavering desire to live in the role of members of the opposite gender
Nope they wish to "live as" what their perception of the opposite SEX is. "gender" is nonsense if anything is nothing more than sex stereotypes. This population includes extremely damaged and dangerous people, sexual deviants.
Puberty is not a disease. the fact that you wish to tamper with children's natural maturation is sick. What's going on in their mind is the problem. Indeed, perhaps society's expectations of them as members of their sex could be contributing. What aren't wrong is their bodies
"Who the hell are you to claim there is such thing as a "trans child" as though humans can be born in the wrong body?"
I'm just someone who understands that the genetic code for all of the human traits that are differentiated by sex is present in the DNA of both men and women.
For example, most men are attracted to women, and most women are attracted to men, but that isn't because women have different DNA for attraction than men. We're all born with the genes for both types of attraction, but during development, some of those genes are activated and others are deactivated through a delicate process mediated by hormones.
Sometimes those developmental processes are disturbed, and a boy's brain develops in a way that will eventually produce a pattern of attraction typical for women instead of men.
The same goes for essentially everything else that separates men from women at birth. Mountains of research has shown an innate preference for certain activities, toys, and interactions that differs between male and female babies -- or at least most of them. Sometimes a baby is born with the opposite sex's preferences instead.
That even extends to semi-conscious preferences that are harder to observe, like whether they'll look to men or women as role models, or whether they'll see other boys or girls as peers and feel the need to fit in with them. It isn't just a coincidence that most boys want to do what they see other boys doing, or get upset when they're mistaken for girls - it's the genetic basis for more complex behaviors related to gender roles and mate selection. But sometimes girls are born with that neural circuitry activated instead.
Sometimes when this happens to one trait, it also happens to other traits, because a change in the prenatal environment affected multiple parts of the body or brain. For example, there are observable physical traits that tend to be associated with sexual orientation or gender identity.
"Born in the wrong body" is a poor description of what's going on. They're born in bodies that developed by following some steps from plan "A" and the rest from plan "B", instead of sticking entirely to one or the other.
"Nope they wish to 'live as' what their perception of the opposite SEX is. 'gender' is nonsense if anything is nothing more than sex stereotypes."
*shrug* Call it whatever you want. I use the word "gender" to refer to the social, cultural aspects we use to detect a person's sex without having to directly observe their reproductive organs, gametes, or chromosomes.
"What's going on in their mind is the problem."
Yes, I agree. But the evidence so far suggests that what's going on in their mind is no longer mutable: you can't change someone's gender identity after they're born any more than you can change their sexual orientation. So the only way to effectively mitigate the problem is for them to change their appearance, behavior, etc. to align with what's going on in their mind. If you discover another effective treatment, lots of people would love to hear about it.
the is no such thing as "gender identity" as some sort of inalienable trait. it is not some sort of pathology that the personalities of both sexes have overlaps. effeminate boys and tomboyish girls are just that...not some sort of "gender" category avatars .and again, we shouldn't be invalidating all social contracts with respect to sex just to indulge the identity disturbances of these cases
"the is no such thing as "gender identity" as some sort of inalienable trait. "
Yes, I agree.
There are *many different* traits that emerge during development as part of the sex differentiation of the brain directed by prenatal hormones, and they all contribute to the patterns of behavior and thought that are associated with each sex. This biology exists in other species -- when lions and lionesses behave differently, it's not because they're picking up stereotypes from TV -- and we shouldn't be surprised that it exists in humans too.
you omit that 85% of kids with dysphoria grow out of it without meds. this fact makes all your points moot. once they start the meds many are permanantly harmed. this harm is avoidable. none of this can be considered in isolation. kids are sold the lie that gender care will make their life easier. obviously its tough being a kid and mamy will take any course harmful or not just to address normal youth issues. some just want to piss off their parents. gay kids often have dysphoria as a normal part of being gay. homephobic adults are lying to them telling them theyre born in the wrong body and pushing them to sterilize themselves. this is what you are supporting - homophobes and profiteers who found a way to profit off normal kid issues.
"you omit that 85% of kids with dysphoria grow out of it without meds."
How do you determine whether they've grown out of it - by whether they still pursue transition at age 18? A lot of the people who pursue transition in their 30s, 40s, 50s, and older had previously experienced, and seemingly grown out of, gender issues in their youth.
kids certainly have no clue what life long sterilization means. none can imagine that one day they may wish to have kids. many on the meds will never even have an orgasm as a resault. think kids are aware of what any of this will mean to them as an adult? of course not. becuase they cant imagine being an adult. a 10 year old would be dead in a week if their parents werent constantly reminding them to watch for cars. add to this big biz and activists are creating a constant flood of lies that kids and adults both believe. the blockers are reversable if taken for their intended purpose. but when taken for gender id 95% go on to sterilzing gender meds. even the pres of the US is lying about this. do gender meds help anything? no they dont. UK, sweden finland all looked and found zero benefit resulted from taking gender meds. the pres of the US is lying about this too. if biden can be fooled why cant a kid? the truth will eventually trickle to even the dumbest person. in the meantime big biz wants to get as many people on the meds they can. each becoming life long lab rats earning millions in profits for big biz. 85% of kids grow out of dysphoria with unmedicated puberty. theres no way to tell which ones will desist. we know most with dysphoria are gay, had trama, were abused or autistic. literially their issues have nothing to do with gender. gender care makes their issues worse, since their real issues go unaddressed. maybe thats why amsterdam says those on gender care have 50% reduced life expectancy. the care doesnt work. but its easy to trick kids into it and make a buck doing so
"kids certainly have no clue what life long sterilization means."
You don't really believe that, do you? They know what sterilization means. They know what "life long" means. Combining those two concepts is certainly within the ability of anyone who's old enough to learn algebra.
"the blockers are reversable if taken for their intended purpose. but when taken for gender id 95% go on to sterilzing gender meds."
When taken for gender identity, they're still every bit as reversible. You seem to be confusing "reversible" for "actually will be reversed", though.
What you're really saying is that 95% of the time, the kids *choose not to* reverse them because they *don't want* to go through their birth-sex puberty; even after being given a few years to consider the consequences, it turns out they still prefer to go on cross-sex hormones instead.
"do gender meds help anything? no they dont."
Of course they do. For instance: "We sought to systematically review the effect of gender-affirming hormone therapy on psychological outcomes among transgender people. [...] Hormone therapy was associated with increased QOL [quality of life], decreased depression, and decreased anxiety." (https://academic.oup.com/jes/article/5/4/bvab011/6126016)
"we know most with dysphoria are gay, had trama, were abused or autistic."
It's no surprise that conditions linked to prenatal hormone exposure such as homosexuality, autism, and gender dysphoria often occur together. Is your proposal to treat those other conditions somehow and hope the gender dysphoria goes away? What's the success rate of curing homosexuality and autism?
the study you posted is typical of propaganda the gender biz uses to claim gender meds work. they dont. in this case you posted the results of a meta analysis of 22 studys. of these 18 were of low quality. that means their results cant be used as evidence of anything. three were of medium quality. and one was very low quality. all were simply self reports of ppl after 3 to 12 months on meds. really meaningless. after a couple years on meds people do severly worse. all were given phych assistance during this time, so any improvements were likely due to the phych help and not related at all to the meds. most people who take the meds arent getting any phych help so these studys cant be used to justify gender meds, unless you require ppl to also get phych help. but gender activists have made getting phych help illegal fraudulently calling it conversions therapy.
also, you wrong confate being gay with gender dysphoria. the two are nothing alike. being gay is a sexuality. being trans id is not. kids typically desist from dysphoria without meds. being gay is immutable, like being a women or an ethical minority. trans id is often a choice that can change day to day. stonewall wants trans id ppl to be able to change their prounouns each and every day.
"in this case you posted the results of a meta analysis of 22 studys. of these 18 were of low quality. that means their results cant be used as evidence of anything."
Nope, that's not what it means. The *strength* of those studies was low, which means the probability that their results are wrong is greater than it would be with stronger studies. That's one reason to do a meta-analysis in the first place: to see how reproducible those results are.
If you flip a coin 10 times and get 7 heads, that's weak evidence for the hypothesis that the coin is biased. If ten people flip the coin 10 times each, and out of 100 flips they get 70 heads, that's stronger evidence.
"after a couple years on meds people do severly worse."
Really? I'd love to see the data backing that up.
"but gender activists have made getting phych help illegal fraudulently calling it conversions therapy."
No, they haven't. There are still plenty of mental health providers who offer gender counseling, and plenty of doctors that require a mental health referral letter before they'll prescribe hormones.
Conversion therapy is something completely different.
"also, you wrong confate being gay with gender dysphoria. the two are nothing alike. being gay is a sexuality. being trans id is not."
Read it again. I didn't say they were literally the same. I said they were both linked to prenatal hormone exposure, which they are: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jne.12562
And so is autism: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8280339/
Therefore, it's no surprise these conditions often occur together.
"trans id is often a choice that can change day to day. stonewall wants trans id ppl to be able to change their prounouns each and every day."
Yes, I agree there are a lot of militant crazies making wild claims with no plausible link to biology. I'm not going to defend that crap. But I certainly will defend the more rational claims, backed by decades of evidence, of people who want to move from one binary sex to the other and who experience clear benefits when they're able to do so.
the gender industry uses meta analysis to claim gender care works when it doesnt. its a carefully crafted tool designed to create a media headline and make it difficult to check how they arrived at that headline. you seem very impressed by this. the nations of UK, sweden finland aren't. they looked carefully at all this evidence and say its garbage. yet here you are trying to sell a bag of crap and telling me its a box of gold bricks. the problem is people pushing your idea have no credibility. every gender industry stat, study slogan and claim is a lie. no, trans id kids dont commit suicide more than other kids with similar non gender related issues, no , gender meds and gender care dont help anything. theres no evidence it does. every gender industry claim is based on meaningless online polls or 12 months of scketchy data. since thats such a huge joke they sometimes use the meta analysis to make it more difficult to check what a fraud it is. the meta analysis use cherry picked studys and misrepresent the data. its all part of the con.
"after a couple years on meds people do severly worse."
"Really? I'd love to see the data backing that up."
every gender industry study, 100s of them, are low quality or very low quality and always end at 18 months with average follow up of 12 months. these studys arent simply doing science. they are attempting to show a pre determined conclution. this is venture capitalism for by venture capitalists. they certainly could do studys with medium or high quality wirh longer follow up. but that would show gender care doesnt work. so instead its all about the headlines. they keep creating these headlines that gender care works, when theres no evidence it does. so now they no longer say theres evidence gender care works. instead they say theres a "concensous" . but thats not true either. ppl pushing gender ideology do so by ignoring all evidence of what a fraud it is, lying their asses off non stop saying it works and ignoring anyone and everything that wont join their well financed cult of which you obiously are a part, most likely employed at the aclu or similar stooge group getting 30 pieces of silver for your efforts.
this very week the american adacemy of pediatrics continued their stance there be no systematic review of the benefits of gender care. they know if that were done the results would show that all the studys pushed by the gender industry are complete crap, which was found by other such reviews.
So what you're saying is, your claim that "after a couple years on meds people do severly worse" isn't backed up by any evidence at all, you just made it up?
Yes, we absolutely believe that children DO NOT understand the implications of life-long sterility. They may correctly think it means they can never have kids, but what they don’t know, cannot know, is what will be their desire for biological children when they are adults? A child, particularly one who has had an unstable or traumatic or abusive background, may be happy at 13 to think they will never be responsible for children of their own. But their goals and desires could be very different a decade or more later, and a child cannot make a fertility decision on behalf of the adult they will become, but do not yet know.
Yes, it's certainly true that people may regret the decisions they made when they were younger. But more often, they regret the decisions other people forced on them when they were younger.
i know life is tough and gender id seems like an easy answer. i suggest you talk it out with a therapist and talk about how you are blaming your parents for many issues. sometimes it helps to speak with others who are qualified and have experience with similar situations.
That's quite a flattering assumption you're making about me, Kyle. Thanks for brightening my day! 😅