Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
Interesting. Otoh, I'm sure if you ask transgender adults, especially activists, when they first knew that they were transgender, many of them will say that they knew from a very young age.
Trans Women are not Women
- Thread starter The Atheist
- Start date
- Status
Interesting. Otoh, I'm sure if you ask transgender adults, especially activists, when they first knew that they were transgender, many of them will say that they knew from a very young age.
The "critique" is in the link I posted. Your source is bullcrap. "The other side" is actual facts on the subject. And facts don't care about your feelings.
Why exactly is it so difficult for you accept the existence of transgender people? You understand that this is not something the "SJW's" have made up, right? You understand that transgender people have been a thing since forever, right? And that they are not going away no matter how many laughable links you supply?
Ask yourself these questions. I'm not interested in the answers you come up with, but you might learn something about yourself.
Last edited:
I was talking about the studies they reference, as you well know.
And don't try the "Cullennz disagrees kids should have puberty blocked based on the kids "feelings", so he thinks there are no genuine transgenders" ****, as it just makes you and your argument look hysterical and silly
Last edited:
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
Yes, you really should.
It would be interesting to see how the pool of subjects was chosen, and what sort of controls were used.
Also how persistent the belief wasand to what age, before they changed their minds.
Counseling can weed out a lot of children who initially might think they may be trans. This is why it is required before more serious interventions are considered.
A more interesting and useful question would be along the lines of how many people who thought they might be transgender at a young age and continued to up to the onset of puberty even after counseling and therapy decided they weren't by age 25.
I suspect the results would not be "most people" anymore.
The way your statement is phrased leaves a lot of room for playing with the numbers.
The perfect and unfortunately impossible study would involve time travel and seeing how many of the same kids grow out of it with and without puberty blockers.
Because the unknown bit is how much puberty blocking affects the final outcome, and how much bad stuff can happen later on if puberty blocking stops growing out of it normally.
Bit of a hash of a sentence there
Sure, those facts are entirely compatible.
It just suggests that while there are many false positives (children initially displaying gender disphoria and then later becoming comfortable with their biological sex), there aren't many false negatives (children not initially displaying gender disphoria, but is presenting itself in adulthood).
This still leaves us with a situation that for any particular child displaying the signs of gender disphoria, they are likely to turn out not to be when they reach adulthood.
Does that mean puberty blockers shouldn't be used? I don't know, but I do think it suggests against transitioning.
I am interested in knowing at what age gender disphoria that is still present tends to be permanent. That's probably the age at which permanent changes should be considered.
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
Are people like Caitlyn Jenner a counterexample to that? Or just a case of spending most of her life in the closet about it? I'm definitely aware of some people who were well into adulthood before deciding to transition.
This article gives a pretty good run down.
Here's a quote:
And here's one of the studies being discussed:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0890856713001871
It appears that they were actually looking at persistence from childhood to adolescence, not to adulthood (I said 25, but it seems I was wrong).
Yeah, maybe. I don't think that there's much of an issue with people who didn't present gender dysphoria at a young age but do as adults. I'm certainly not inclined to disbelieve them because they've made the realisation late, though it may be reason for them to take more time in considering their feelings, I guess. I also think that adults should be allowed to make their own decisions, but the issue with children is more difficult and thus it is important to understand whether or not gender dysphoria will persist into adulthood in order to know how it should be approached with respect to children.
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,406
Very good link - cheers.
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2003
- Messages
- 20,501
It seems to me that choice should be between the child, their family, and their doctors.
Disagree?
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
I'm agnostic. For now, I'm provisionally taking the null hypothesis for your claim: It should not be a choice between the child, their family, and their doctors.
Can you tell me more about your guiding principles, when and why you make exceptions, etc.?
For example, there are many things that we (as a society) say should *not* be a child's choice. There are two broad sets of guiding principles for this, both with exceptions.
One set of guiding principles is along the lines of, nothing should be a child's choice. And then we make exceptions in some cases, where we allow the child to choose.
The other set of guiding principles is along the lines of, everything should be the child's choice. And then we make exceptions in some cases, where we don't allow the child to choose.
So. Your idea that a child should be allowed to choose their gender, pre-puberty. Does it fall under your guiding principle that children should be allowed to make their own choices, and you can't see a reason to make an exception here? Or is the other way around?
If that's too broad a consideration, we can keep it in the realm of medical choices. It's not hard to find a kid that doesn't want to be jabbed with a needle. Do we let them choose for themselves whether to get vaccinated?
---
It's a similar case with doctors. There are plenty of medical procedures that we don't leave to the doctor's discretion. Late-term abortions of convenience, for example. Euthanasia, for another. Should this procedure be one of them? Why or why not?
---
If you think that as a matter of social policy we should let it be a choice between the child, their family, and their doctors, then it's incumbent upon you to advocate for this policy. Before you seek agreement or disagreement, you should explain why you think this is a good policy. What principles are you basing it on? How does it follow from those prinicples? Is it an exception to a general rule, or an application of that rule? Are you prepared to address the concerns and objections raised by others, based on the same reasoning? Etc.
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,664
As a legal matter, I don't think the state is better positioned to make this decision. But I am concerned that the basis on which the decision is often made may not be fully informed by all the relevant facts. In other words, I don't trust that doctors are helping parents and kids make the right decisions, but I don't trust anyone else with the power to intervene either.
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2007
- Messages
- 44,024
This is why we can't get along, if we can't even agree to each other on what we are.
Sport is a non-state issue, let the various sport bodies and organisations decide for themselves what criteria they wish to use. Some may want to stop trans people competing in a certain segment, others may not. Many of the larger sporting organisations even control what legal substances people who want to compete in that organisation can consume and use, so they are already "force" people to do what they want if they want to compete.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Discriminating against people on the basis of gender, sexuality, religion, or race, however, is a state issue. So sporting organizations can't just say "our business, our rules" and expect the state to stay out of it. Any more than a bakery can do so. That's the real nub of the problem. If the state determines that transsexuals are entitled to certain recognition on the basis of gender, sporting organizations will find themselves right up against a state issue.
In my view we don't have the scientific evidence (yet) as to the true lifetime risk of trying to supress the physiological changes that occur through puberty. However we do know that environmental factors can alter the age of the onset of puberty, over a hundred years ago it is estimated the average age of onset of puberty in girls was around 16, it is now in the USA around 10 years of age. We don't fully know why this has happened but it shows there is a great amount of inherant plasticity so it may be we can safely delay it from the average today of 10 to the average of 16 from a hundred years ago without too many side effects. But as I say we don't have good answers yet.
We have to weigh that uncertainty against some things we do know and that is the suffering that trans people relate about going through puberty and their bodies changing in the wrong way (to them). This can be so acute that it increases the risk of suicide and other mental illness.
Whatever decisions parents, children and medical practitioners make it is one that can't be made with certainty that it is the best decision.
Er yes they can else you wouldn't have men and women in separate competitions, often with different sporting authorities for the different sexes. No idea why we do allow such discrimination but we certainly do.
- Status