Being transgender is hard

[tyr_13]

Could be. I'm not really interested in whether something is insulting, though. Chaz Bono exists, whether or not he is insulted or whether people are insulted on his behalf.

There's also a problem here when listening to adult transgendered individuals talking about their youth, because by the time they get to be unambiguous adults, they know. (Some might disagree, but I don't.) This doesn't help the other way around: how many diagnosed transgender children will grow up to be transgendered?



You can disagree if you like, but your supposition of the presupposition is fallacious. The presupposition is that maturity and a variety of life experiences are important for understanding gender.

Now, I happen to think that sexuality, in the broad sense, is an overwhelming component of everything, including the drive behind intellectual pursuits and learning, and emotional maturity. Even male dogs, who have notoriously simply sexualities and intellect, fly the pink zeppelin when humans teach them behaviors.

This is a minority opinion, but if you balk at that, consider this. Our culture does not allow pre-pubescents even to make decisions regarding their sexuality, or refuse consent to medical treatment, or enter into binding treatments. So, I'm not convinced that it is possible to get good enough readings from them to warrant the Harry Benjamin protocols involving hormone treatments of pre-pubescents.

Even if you balk at that, fine! Let's discuss it as adults. It would be a couple of orders of magnitude better than what has happened in this thread, or any other I've seen.

You said sexual activity. If you meant sexuality in broad strokes then that is different. See my questions to Alt+F4. Gay men are not all women in men's bodies for example. I was aware that I am a straight male well before my first consensual sexual encounter. It seems that is not what you were trying to say however.

There are plenty of people who have had those experiences you say are necessary and still can't understand gender. And people will come to different understandings of gender. There is no one answer.

But sexual development and mental development are not dependent on one another. There are disorders where the body doesn't develop sexually, but their brains still mature. That is not a matter of opinion. Sexual development also brings on hormonal changes and such, but that's not the only component of mental, reasoning, and long term risk assessment etc. development. It's not even a major component of it.

The reasons for minors not being allowed to make medical choices or other choices is NOT because they are prepubescent.

 

[Dessi]

Chaz Bono is 42 years old. During much of his life, he was confused (your words). Confused for decades.

Chaz Bono's experience does not generalize to everyone.

Now then, therefore, please explain how it is impossible that a 10-year-old pre-pubescent, or the parents, or the participating psychiatrist or endocrinologist could possibly be confused. Because that's what I'm seeing from the reactions. It's so obvious that anyone who wonders or who asks for evidence is ignorant and probably a hateful bigot, too.

I'd like to see some evidence. Something scientific, tracking diagnoses and seeing if they work, especially on people who have extremely limited understanding of gender and no first-person understanding of interacting sexually.

Here's a fairly good overview of the diagnostic criteria used to diagnose GID with its predictive validity. Here's a fairly good overview of the diagnostic criteria used to diagnose GID with its predictive validity.

Two studies jumped out to me:

Zucker, Finegan, Doering, and Bradley (1984) conducted the
only study that attempted to establish the reliability of the
DSM-III GIDC criteria in terms of agreement between two
raters. From chart information reported by parents of gender-
referred children during a clinical interview, Zucker et al.had
two coders independently use this information to judge if the
child met DSM criteria for GIDC (N = 31). For Criterion A,
the two raters agreed in 34 of the 36 cases (19 present, 15
absent). Because this research team did not find that Criterion
B‘ ‘worked’ ’for girls, Criterion B ratings were limited to boys
(N = 31). For this criterion, the two raters agreed in 28 of the
31 cases (16 present, 12 absent).

So, GID can be consistently diagnosed between different psychologists, there is rarely disagreement between diagnoses.

And, regarding the DSM-III diagnostic criteria:

Wallien and Cohen-Kettenis (2008) reported psychosexual fol-
low-up data on 77 gender-referred children (59 boys, 18 girls),
originally assessed at a mean age of 8.4 years (range, 5–12). At
the time of follow-up, the mean age was 18.9 years (range, 16–
28). Regarding gender identity at follow-up, 21 children (12 boys,
9 girls) were classified as persisters, i.e., these children were still
gender dysphoric and were seen clinically because of an ongoing
desire for sex-reassignment (hormonal and surgical treatment);
the remaining 56 children were classified as desisters (i.e., they
were no longer gender-dysphoric), either based on a formal
re-assessment or because they had not re-contacted the clinic
requesting sex-reassignment. Of the 21 persisters, all had re-
ceived a DSM-III-R diagnosis of GIDC at the time of assessment
in childhood, compared to 37 (66.0%) of the desisters, a signifi-
cant difference.

On two dimensional measures of cross-gender
identity, the Gender Identity Questionnaire for Children (GIQC)
(Johnson et al., 2004) and the Gender Identity Interview for
Children (GIIC) (Wallien et al., 2009; Zucker et al., 1993), the
persisters showed significantly more cross-gender behavior and
gender identity confusion than the desisters. Thus, using both
categorical diagnosis and dimensional measures, Wallien and
Cohen-Kettenis provided some evidence for predictive validity
vis-a `-vis persistence versus desistance. In my view, these data
constitute an important addition to the empirical literature
regarding the validity of the GIDC criteria.

So, there is some predictive validity in the GID criteria as there were written in 1980.

Recent modifications to the GID criteria, as well as the addition of several other kinds diagnostic measures, significantly reduce the rate of false positives:

As was the case for pre-DSM-IV cohorts, a number of studies
have demonstrated reasonable evidence of discriminant valid-
ity. There have been at least seven such studies in the DSM-IV
era [citations snipped for brevity].

In some of these studies, data on specific-
ity and sensitivity have been examined. In general, it has been
argued that specific psychometric measures should have a high
threshold for specificity, that is, to have a low rate of false pos-
itives for controls. In Johnson et al. (2004), the specificity rate
was set at 95%, which yielded a sensitivity rate of 86.8% for
the gender-referred probands (which improved to 96.3% when
only probands who were threshold for the GID diagnosis were
examined).

So the diagnostic criteria in the DSM-IV are reasonably good at distinguishing between children with GID/threshold group from children who are simply gender variant with no desire to transition/subthreshold group (some googling indicated that gender variance is associated to bi- or same-gender sexual orientation).

It looks like longitudinal studies using the more recent language are sparse, or at least they evade my google-fu. However, indications above suggest a systematic misdiagnosis and mistreatment of a non-gender dysphoric is extremely rare. True transsexual children are going to get the correct diagnosis and care they need.

 

[epepke]

You said sexual activity.

I said sexual activity and I said sexuality in broad strokes. You fixated on one and came to an inaccurate conclusion about what I was saying. I think that there might be some value, if we disagree, to figuring out what we disagree about.

If I tried, I could probably come up with 10,000 experiences that have shaped my sense of self, including gender. I don't have the time to do that, but if I did, people wouldn't read them. They'd just fixate on one or two and say, as you have, that those particular ones aren't very important.

Since one could do that with some points, one could do that with all of them and result in the conclusion that none matter. That would be inaccurate, both in the sense that it wouldn't accurately reflect what I am saying, and in the sense that IMO it wouldn't accurately describe what I laughingly call "reality."

 

[epepke]

Chaz Bono's experience does not generalize to everyone.

Sigh... Do you really believe, seriously, that I think it does let alone that I said this, or is it just a piece of cheap sophistry?

What I see in this thread is Chaz Bono this, and Chaz Bono that, so long as it is in support of a prevailing viewpoint. All of a sudden, when I write something that doesn't fit, I have to be told that his experience does not generalize. It's purely ad hoc.

Here's a fairly good overview of the diagnostic criteria used to diagnose GID with its predictive validity. Here's a fairly good overview of the diagnostic criteria used to diagnose GID with its predictive validity.

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!

This is the kind of thing that I've hoped for. I don't know the details yet, but it's a start, and it's at least consistent with evidence-based reasoning.

Now, how many pages of swimming up Fertilizer Creek and how much abuse had to be gone through to get even to this reasonable starting point?

True transsexual children are going to get the correct diagnosis and care they need.

Great! Also totally irrelevant, and fairly obviously.

Of course, if a "true transsexual" (or rather, trangender) child is diagnosed as transgender and get the care they need (which, to be honest, might not actually happen), then the diagnosis is correct by definition.

The question I have is totally unrelated. It is, given a diagnosis of being transgender, how likely is the child to be, in your words, a "true transsexual."

We've had this kind of thing before, back in the 80s, when everyone was all big on Satanic Child Abuse and saw hidden tunnels for Satanic rituals everywhere. When this was investigated by skeptics, there were a lot of problems found with the way in which investigators talked to children.

During this time, people said "abused children don't lie about it." This was irrelevant and stupid. The question was whether children who were not abused could lie, or fantasize, or give wrong answers to (mis)leading questions.

Of course, the skepticism offended a great many people. About the same questions about the diagnosis of transgenderism in pre-pubescents seem to be offensive here. That's not exceptional, but when it gets to the point of obvious logical fallacies, that just means that skepticism is appropriate.

 

[Earthborn]

Now, how many pages of swimming up Fertilizer Creek and how much abuse had to be gone through to get even to this reasonable starting point?

Not too much in this thread, as far as I see.

The question I have is totally unrelated. It is, given a diagnosis of being transgender, how likely is the child to be, in your words, a "true transsexual."

About as likely as they are to be a true Scotsman. Whether they are "true transsexual" or not is quite irrelevant.

When this was investigated by skeptics, there were a lot of problems found with the way in which investigators talked to children.

Those investigators were often not trained psychologists or psychiatrists, while the therapists diagnosing GID in children are, who are not basing far reaching conclusions on a few talks.

Also a misdiagnosis is not as problematic. When investigators wrongly conclude Satanic abuse someone might end up in jail while being innocent. When they wrongly conclude a child is transsexual, a child may get through a phase of innocent gender play before deciding not to go through with sex reassignment when they are an adult.

About the same questions about the diagnosis of transgenderism in pre-pubescents seem to be offensive here.

Really? Who was offended?

 

[truethat]

This is good, and given your other apology, perhaps I can be forgiven for some cautious optimism. So I'll restate the question.

Chaz Bono is 42 years old. During much of his life, he was confused (your words). Confused for decades.

Now then, therefore, please explain how it is impossible that a 10-year-old pre-pubescent, or the parents, or the participating psychiatrist or endocrinologist could possibly be confused. Because that's what I'm seeing from the reactions. It's so obvious that anyone who wonders or who asks for evidence is ignorant and probably a hateful bigot, too.

I'd like to see some evidence. Something scientific, tracking diagnoses and seeing if they work, especially on people who have extremely limited understanding of gender and no first-person understanding of interacting sexually.

That is, something a bit more solid than "awww" Youtube videos and news reports.

While we're at it, maybe it could also be strong enough to justify the Harry Benjamin (now WPATH) standards of hormonal therapy for the pre-pubescent.

Have you read Chaz Bono's books? His books are not specifically about his own experiences although that is part of his story. They also examine the science and social issues behind a lot of this. Why not READ his book before you attempt to discuss his issues.

Why would you like to see some evidence? Please it explain that bit.

Frankly the reason it's been so annoying in this thread is that some of the posters seem to want to deny the reality of transgender issues.

I mean that IS what you are doing when you say you need "proof" is it not? And even Alt4 saying that she doesn't know what it feels like to be a woman is a suggestion that she doubts the veracity of the claims

That's all well and good to do, especially on a skeptic forum, however you are still not explaining what it is you have a problem with? Seems like you are doubting the reality of the issue because you don't like the idea of children transitioning.

Except it seems to me that you are confusing what transitioning is. It doesn't mean the kid gets a sex change operation. The youngest sex change operation I remember was in a 16 year old girl and she was examined by therapists and doctors for years before this happened.

Chaz Bono probably is an extreme case because his mother is Cher. He's come out to explain many times that doing something like this in the public spotlight is what caused him not to do it sooner.


The reason you are being called prejudiced and uneducated on the topic is that you are denying it and demanding evidence when it is a medical diagnosis. I'm not sure why you as a lay person and Alt4 as some woman who obviously has absolutely no idea what she is talking about, expect a bunch of posters on a message board to explain something to you that you don't seem to have the capacity of understanding anyway?

You've been given the "laymans" version of the information. Do you really expect to be given clinical documentation etc? You aren't going to read it, it's been posted before by me and it was completely ignored because none of you understood what it meant.

You've got a choice here, either accept the evidence from the experts and trust the "layman's" interpretation of it. Understand that you are not qualified to debate it.

Or continue acting like uneducated bigots who reject information they don't understand because it doesn't "make sense" to you guys or you don't believe it.

 

[truethat]

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!

This is the kind of thing I posted links for a few pages back. You didn't read it.


http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/Sex and GID Lit Reviews/GID/ZUCKERDSM.pdf

There are embedded links in the pdf and also works cited for further research. I'm just curious why you think you are qualified to "examine the research" on this topic and form an opinion about it at all. Do you have a background in mental health or gender studies?

 

[truethat]

Not too much in this thread, as far as I see.

About as likely as they are to be a true Scotsman. Whether they are "true transsexual" or not is quite irrelevant.

Those investigators were often not trained psychologists or psychiatrists, while the therapists diagnosing GID in children are, who are not basing far reaching conclusions on a few talks.

Also a misdiagnosis is not as problematic. When investigators wrongly conclude Satanic abuse someone might end up in jail while being innocent. When they wrongly conclude a child is transsexual, a child may get through a phase of innocent gender play before deciding not to go through with sex reassignment when they are an adult.

Really? Who was offended?

thank you.

 

[epepke]

Not too much in this thread, as far as I see.

You probably don't see it.

About as likely as they are to be a true Scotsman. Whether they are "true transsexual" or not is quite irrelevant.

And we were getting along so well!

I find it hard to believe you are arguing this. Are you really saying that, when diagnosing a condition, diagnosing it accurately is "quite irrelevant?"

Also a misdiagnosis is not as problematic. When investigators wrongly conclude Satanic abuse someone might end up in jail while being innocent. When they wrongly conclude a child is transsexual, a child may get through a phase of innocent gender play before deciding not to go through with sex reassignment when they are an adult.

Look, I really don't know how many times I have to say this before somebody reads it. I don't really care about innocent gender play. This is not a big deal. I have said this time and time again. Hell, I engaged in a lot of it at that age.

I am referring to cases where the Harry Benjamin Standards of Care (now the WPATH) specify administering hormone treatments to pre-pubescents.

Now, please look at the OP:

One of parents in the group has a transgender daughter, age 10. This parent is a public speaker, and is preparing some talks on transgender children and their care, relating in particular how all but one endocrinologist is willing to treat her child, how her religious school kicked her child out.

I've bolded the relevant parts. Endocrinologist. What do you imagine endocrinologists do?

It's right up there, part of the public record.

If the OP had not said this, then I likely would not have responded at all to this thread. I do not know how to get you to read this. I cannot force you. I have no idea how to get you even to imagine the possibility that this is what has gotten skeptics involved.

Now, @Dessi, to her credit, came up with links to some good information: I haven't given an in-depth analysis yet, but when I got to the Predictive Validity section, just reading the title, I thought "Oh Boy! That's what I was looking for!" This is what it says:

Wallien and Cohen-Kettenis (2008) reported psychosexual fol- low-up data on 77 gender-referred children (59 boys, 18 girls), originally assessed at a mean age of 8.4 years (range, 5–12). At the time of follow-up, the mean age was 18.9 years (range, 16– 28). Regarding gender identity at follow-up, 21 children (12 boys, 9 girls) were classified as persisters, i.e., these children were still gender dysphoric and were seen clinically because of an ongoing desire for sex-reassignment (hormonal and surgical treatment); the remaining 56 children were classified as desisters (i.e., they were no longer gender-dysphoric), either based on a formal re-assessment or because they had not re-contacted the clinic requesting sex-reassignment. Of the 21 persisters, all had re- ceived a DSM-III-R diagnosis of GIDC at the time of assessment in childhood, compared to 37 (66.0%) of the desisters, a significant difference.

Hmmm.... Not so cogent, I think. 21 persisters diagnosed as GIDC. 37 desisters. Yes, a significant difference. Not what we've been told sanctimoniously in this thread. [Diganosed] transgender children never change, or only a "microminority" change, etc. and blah blah blah.

Probably no harm done, because just by looking at the ages and dates, they were all diagnosed before the latest revisions of the Harry Benjamin standards were put into place. Now we have these, including hormone treatments.

I'm not even going to ask you if you think that giving pre-pubescents hormone treatments based on a diagnosis that, in a longitudinal study that has been shown to be wrong or at least not obviously right about 60% of the time is worth at least a little bit of concern. I will ask if you can see that it is possible for a skeptic to be concerned about it without being a bigot or willfully ignorant.

Or is it still "irrelevant"? Or are hormone treatments not only "innocent gender play" but so obviously so that any questioning of the idea is perverse?

 

[truethat]

Are you trying to pretend you actually know what you are talking about? Or is it your normal practice to ask for one "source" on a topic and examine that one source and call it a day if you disagree with said source?

Here once again is the link that I posted

http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/Sex and GID Lit Reviews/GID/ZUCKERDSM.pdf

Below you will note 4 pages of resources (double columned) If you want to argue down the experts I really suggest you get to reading. Your commentary on research you don't understand is ridiculous.


Also please, since you are so concerned, let us know the number of children who have received irreversible hormone therapy for treatment.

 

[truethat]

You probably don't see it.



And we were getting along so well!

I find it hard to believe you are arguing this. Are you really saying that, when diagnosing a condition, diagnosing it accurately is "quite irrelevant?"



Look, I really don't know how many times I have to say this before somebody reads it. I don't really care about innocent gender play. This is not a big deal. I have said this time and time again. Hell, I engaged in a lot of it at that age.

I am referring to cases where the Harry Benjamin Standards of Care (now the WPATH) specify administering hormone treatments to pre-pubescents.

Now, please look at the OP:



I've bolded the relevant parts. Endocrinologist. What do you imagine endocrinologists do?

It's right up there, part of the public record.

If the OP had not said this, then I likely would not have responded at all to this thread. I do not know how to get you to read this. I cannot force you. I have no idea how to get you even to imagine the possibility that this is what has gotten skeptics involved.

Now, @Dessi, to her credit, came up with links to some good information: I haven't given an in-depth analysis yet, but when I got to the Predictive Validity section, just reading the title, I thought "Oh Boy! That's what I was looking for!" This is what it says:



Hmmm.... Not so cogent, I think. 21 persisters diagnosed as GIDC. 37 desisters. Yes, a significant difference. Not what we've been told sanctimoniously in this thread. [Diganosed] transgender children never change, or only a "microminority" change, etc. and blah blah blah.

Probably no harm done, because just by looking at the ages and dates, they were all diagnosed before the latest revisions of the Harry Benjamin standards were put into place. Now we have these, including hormone treatments.

I'm not even going to ask you if you think that giving pre-pubescents hormone treatments based on a diagnosis that, in a longitudinal study that has been shown to be wrong or at least not obviously right about 60% of the time is worth at least a little bit of concern. I will ask if you can see that it is possible for a skeptic to be concerned about it without being a bigot or willfully ignorant.

Or is it still "irrelevant"? Or are hormone treatments not only "innocent gender play" but so obviously so that any questioning of the idea is perverse?

Clearly you don't seem to get the difference between Gender Identity Disorder and being Transgender. Do you know that MOST children diagnosed with Gender Identity Disorder grow out of it by their teens? if this is the case why would a doctor willingly prescribe hormone therapy or surgery.

You are using GID and Transgender interchangably it seems. A transgender child DOES NOT GROW OUT OF IT. Thus they are transgender.

If a child is a transgender it is very important that they not develop secondary sexual characteristics as they go through puberty. Blockers can be used to quash this occurrence.

This interesting article will help.

http://www.citypages.com/2009-03-04/news/transgender-kids-how-young-is-too-young-for-a-sex-change/

 

[Earthborn]

You probably don't see it.

Maybe only you see it. What I have seen is truethat unfairly characterising your position, but I have seen nothing I could call "swimming up Fertilizer Creek" or "abuse".

Are you really saying that, when diagnosing a condition, diagnosing it accurately is "quite irrelevant?"

No, I am not saying that. Diagnosing gender dysphoria is not the same thing as determining whether someone is a "true transsexual". Children may correctly be diagnosed as gender dysphoric without needing to be a "true transsexual" (whatever that means).

I am referring to cases where the Harry Benjamin Standards of Care (now the WPATH) specify administering hormone treatments to pre-pubescents.

It only specifies administering fully reversible treatment to children when pubertal changes have begun, and only when the child has persisted in his/her cross-gender identification for quite some time.

I've bolded the relevant parts. Endocrinologist. What do you imagine endocrinologists do?

They do more than just prescribing hormone pills. They may for example test whether someone has any hormonal imbalances.

[Diganosed] transgender children never change, or only a "microminority" change, etc. and blah blah blah.

Whoever said that was wrong. If you read any further you will notice however that the study also shows that it is possible to distinguish the persisters from the desisters.

I'm not even going to ask you if you think that giving pre-pubescents hormone treatments based on a diagnosis that, in a longitudinal study that has been shown to be wrong or at least not obviously right about 60% of the time is worth at least a little bit of concern.

No, the "pre-pubescent hormone treatments" you object to so much (and which are fully reversible) are only given to the children who are very likely to be "persisters".

 

[Earthborn]

Clearly you don't seem to get the difference between Gender Identity Disorder and being Transgender.

There is no difference. "Transgenderism" is not some state of being separate from one's gender identity disorder. Someone who is transgender in adulthood has simply persisted in having his/her gender identity "disordered". Not that there is anything wrong with that.

 

[truethat]

There is no difference. "Transgenderism" is not some state of being separate from one's gender identity disorder. Someone who is transgender in adulthood has simply persisted in having his/her gender identity "disordered". Not that there is anything wrong with that.

I do see the distinction in terminology is one that is causing confusion. I am not aware of "transgenderism" being used but I may not have heard it yet.

There is a distinction between Transgender and Gender Identity Disorder. One is a state of being and the other is a diagnosis.

Being transgender need not be a "disorder" any more than being gay is having a "sexual orientation disorder"


The point is that a child can be diagnosed as having Gender Identity Disorder and grow out of it by the time they hit their teens. A transsexual will not. Since some seem to confuse the treatment of GID in children I think it is important to make that distinction.

A transsexual who has been diagnosed as having GID will not grow out of it. A "normal" child experiencing GID often grows out of it.



http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/transgender.aspx

Is being transgender a mental disorder?
A psychological state is considered a mental disorder only if it causes significant distress or disability. Many transgender people do not experience their gender as distressing or disabling, which implies that identifying as transgender does not constitute a mental disorder. For these individuals, the significant problem is finding affordable resources, such as counseling, hormone therapy, medical procedures, and the social support necessary to freely express their gender identity and minimize discrimination. Many other obstacles may lead to distress, including a lack of acceptance within society, direct or indirect experiences with discrimination, or assault. These experiences may lead many transgender people to suffer with anxiety, depression, or related disorders at higher rates than nontransgender persons.
In the United States, payment for health care treatment by insurance companies, Medicare, and Medicaid must be for a specific “disorder,” defined as a condition within the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) or the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV). According to DSM-IV, people who experience intense, persistent gender incongruence can be given the diagnosis of gender identity disorder. This diagnosis is highly controversial among some mental health professionals and transgender communities. Some contend that the diagnosis inappropriately pathologizes gender noncongruence and should be eliminated. Others argue that it is essential to retain the diagnosis to ensure access to care.

 

[L.Y.S.]

So why give children hormones in the first place if they will grow out of it? Delaying puberty is one thing. Giving hormones is another. I don't think most people are adverse to the concept of teenagers, young adults, and older adults making decisions for their selves about life. But most would generally agree that children do not have the life experience necessary to make such a crucial decisions. Regardless to whether or not they are beginning to understand that they feel another gender. However, it is wise that a parent allows a child to explore their developing gender image by themselves. This does not mean however, a child should under any circumstances, should be given hormones. It's really as simple as that. I think the NHS had it right, give them drugs to delay puberty. If they wanna go through with it by 15 or 16, then it's their choice .

 

[Professor Yaffle]

So why give children hormones in the first place if they will grow out of it? Delaying puberty is one thing. Giving hormones is another. I don't think most people are adverse to the concept of teenagers, young adults, and older adults making decisions for their selves about life. But most would generally agree that children do not have the life experience necessary to make such a crucial decisions. Regardless to whether or not they are beginning to understand that they feel another gender. However, it is wise that a parent allows a child to explore their developing gender image by themselves. This does not mean however, a child should under any circumstances, should be given hormones. It's really as simple as that. I think the NHS had it right, give them drugs to delay puberty. If they wanna go through with it by 15 or 16, then it's their choice .

Erm... I don't think anyone has suggested giving hormones to children, other than for delaying puberty...

 

[L.Y.S.]

Erm... I don't think anyone has suggested giving hormones to children, other than for delaying puberty...

Then we are in agreement. My fault for not knowing better. If we are talking about delaying puberty I am in agreement with this.

 

[tyr_13]

I said sexual activity and I said sexuality in broad strokes. You fixated on one and came to an inaccurate conclusion about what I was saying. I think that there might be some value, if we disagree, to figuring out what we disagree about.

If I tried, I could probably come up with 10,000 experiences that have shaped my sense of self, including gender. I don't have the time to do that, but if I did, people wouldn't read them. They'd just fixate on one or two and say, as you have, that those particular ones aren't very important.

Since one could do that with some points, one could do that with all of them and result in the conclusion that none matter. That would be inaccurate, both in the sense that it wouldn't accurately reflect what I am saying, and in the sense that IMO it wouldn't accurately describe what I laughingly call "reality."

Well of course I only objected to the point I found objectionable. What would you expect one to do?

That you can come up with other, possibly valid points doesn't make the one I objected too more valid. Do virgins count as men or women? I know you don't believe it's ONLY that point, but I cannot see your justification for that one.

And again, it doesn't really matter what experiences you use to understand yourself and gender, as other people will come to equally valid understandings using completely different criteria.

 

[epepke]

Have you read Chaz Bono's books? His books are not specifically about his own experiences although that is part of his story. They also examine the science and social issues behind a lot of this. Why not READ his book before you attempt to discuss his issues.

Not the last one, no. Is it definitive? Some here seem not to think so. I have read a few books, including some you may not have read.

In any event, I like scientific papers. They speak to me in a way that personal accounts don't. Furthermore, I'm approaching this from the perspective of scientific skepticism. Science is what I like to do. It's what I was trained for. And really, there's a lot of good stuff in science. Maybe you don't like that, but so what?

Why would you like to see some evidence? Please it explain that bit.

You've asked twice, and it's pretty obnoxious, I think. Why should I need a reason? Is it forbidden? Does one need a license to ask a question on a skeptical forum?

In any event, I've already mentioned that I'm tight with some transgender advocates and advocacy groups. If that isn't sufficient to explain to you why I'm asking questions, I don't think I can help you.

Frankly the reason it's been so annoying in this thread is that some of the posters seem to want to deny the reality of transgender issues.

I can empathize. I'm not doing that.

I mean that IS what you are doing when you say you need "proof" is it not?

No. And if you can't see that I've asked for scientific evidence, not proof (a word I hardly ever use), then I really don't know what I can say to you.

That's all well and good to do, especially on a skeptic forum, however you are still not explaining what it is you have a problem with?

I explained it extremely clearly, several times.

Seems like you are doubting the reality of the issue because you don't like the idea of children transitioning.

I have stated this, several times. I have no problem with transgendered children's transitioning, even possibly involving the pre-pubescent administration of hormones, provided that the diagnosis is sufficiently predictive.

Except it seems to me that you are confusing what transitioning is. It doesn't mean the kid gets a sex change operation.

Please read, or at least try. I never asserted that gender reassignment surgery was performed on pre-pubescents. In fact, I disagreed with someone who said they did.

The reason you are being called prejudiced and uneducated on the topic is that you are denying it and demanding evidence when it is a medical diagnosis.

OK. Now we're getting somewhere. HELL YES, I DO. Yes, truly and surely I do ask for evidence about medical diagnoses. All the damn time. Especially when they are based on the DSM, a highly political document which, in case you weren't aware, pathologized homosexuality until 1987.

I'm not sure why you as a lay person and Alt4 as some woman who obviously has absolutely no idea what she is talking about, expect a bunch of posters on a message board to explain something to you that you don't seem to have the capacity of understanding anyway?

In the words of Krazy Kat, possibly the first transgendered character in modern comics, "deewee me." Your presumption only seems matched by your reading difficulties. You would have a great deal of difficulty persuading people who have known me for years that I am a member of the scientific laity. Suffice it to say that I was the only recipient, ever, of a cash "thank you" gift from a major pharmaceutical company for my contributions. However, I do not pull rank here. I do this partially out of respect for James Randi, an actual member of the laity who has contributed inestimably to scientific skepticism. I do it partially because this forum is a culture of addressing the argument and not the arguer, a concept that seems beyond your comprehension.

You've been given the "laymans" version of the information. Do you really expect to be given clinical documentation etc?

Yes, and I've gotten some, but not from you.

You aren't going to read it, it's been posted before by me and it was completely ignored because none of you understood what it meant.

So, let's see. I count several Youtube videos, a news item, a Wikipedia article, and a Stanford encyclopedia article, and one dsm5 article, which I read.

You've got a choice here, either accept the evidence from the experts and trust the "layman's" interpretation of it. Understand that you are not qualified to debate it.

Or continue acting like uneducated bigots who reject information they don't understand because it doesn't "make sense" to you guys or you don't believe it.

How about "no." I'll continue to ask for them, because it's worked. You can continue to stereotype, not listen, blather, and fail to demonstrate reading skills. Works for me.

 

[truethat]

So why give children hormones in the first place if they will grow out of it? Delaying puberty is one thing. Giving hormones is another. I don't think most people are adverse to the concept of teenagers, young adults, and older adults making decisions for their selves about life. But most would generally agree that children do not have the life experience necessary to make such a crucial decisions. Regardless to whether or not they are beginning to understand that they feel another gender. However, it is wise that a parent allows a child to explore their developing gender image by themselves. This does not mean however, a child should under any circumstances, should be given hormones. It's really as simple as that. I think the NHS had it right, give them drugs to delay puberty. If they wanna go through with it by 15 or 16, then it's their choice .

So then you agree? Hormone blockers are used when the child is young to prevent puberty. I'm also a bit curious. Are you against the use of any hormones in a teens body? What of the use of birth control pills?

I doubt a doctor will give a child irreversible hormones unless it is very clear that a child is a transsexual.


And once again, just because you don't understand how this distinction is made, doesn't mean the medical community, parents or transgendered child is confused, so stop projecting your confusion as an uncertainty that should be respected by others.

We get it, you are confused and unsure, so are many others on this thread. You are allowed to be so. It doesn't mean you are correct. Keep learning until you catch up.