Transgender identity in kids.

[Dessi]

It's fixable. There are too many obvious examples of TG individuals who were born with male bodies that manage to look completely and indistinguishably female despite never having their bodies altered as children.

Irrelevant. The medicine exists, whatever people did before has absolutely no bearing on whether people should have access to it now.

I think any medical procedure performed on children that doesn't correct an obvious disease or deformity needs to be strongly justified, yes I do; especially one with such long-lasting consequences.

GID is a serious medical issue, a fact which is substantiated every major psychological and psychiatric organization with an interest in the subject, further supported by the numerous numerous court cases in the US around the world which require prisons to continue treating transgender prisoners, further supported by tax courts in the US consistently recognizing transgender surgeries as medically necessary and therefore tax deductible. The treatment is transitioning, combined with psychological counseling and support, with hormones prescribed as needed, and surgical procedures if the patient wishes.

What single piece of information do you have to contradict these already well-established facts? Seriously, you're arguing for position which puts you in the microminority and squarely against the mainstream scientific opinion of the entire relevant psychological and psychiatric universe. You need to have a damn good argument to support your position. If you don't have an argument, I have no more interest continuing the discussion, the least you can do is concede your error.

Transitioning early is to reduce years and years of untreated gender dysphoria.

Does it, in fact? Are females with male bodies actually able to integrate and be happy once their puberty has been stopped? How about the other way around?

Yes, yes, and yes.

The subject is well documented in psychological journals and media. See the following:

Suppression of puberty in transgender children, concludes that puberty blockers are beneficial, withholding them is unethical.
Psychological profile of early transitioners, concludes that young transitioners well-adjusted, emotionally stable, happy.
Girl/Boy Interrupted: A new treatment for transgender kids puts puberty on hold so that they won't develop into their biological sex
Wrong Body: they have that 'pecker, synopses of Dutch children on hormone blockers.
Transitioning early in life, describes a number of Dutch and German children's experiences with hormone blockers early in their transition.

What happens in high school when it's time for communal showers?

Irrelevant. Trans people deal with a number of unique challenges, especially in schooling, but those issues are a red herring. Whether those potential problems are sufficiently persuasive that a trans person would not transition is highly personal. They should be treated in a manner consistent with their wishes, which may include transitioning early in life.

Early interventions can prevent the development of secondary sexual characteristics which exacerbate gender dysphoria. Its much easier to masculinize a feminine body than feminize a masucline body.

At what cost? Have you truly considered it, or does the fact that puberty will eventually reverse itself make the meantime bearable for someone who chooses to remain a man? Because I don't see how it's okay to put somebody through that because as a child they wanted to be a different sex, but not okay to let somebody go through puberty and have their desires addressed with reassignment surgery afterwards.

Yes, I've truly considered my comments, which echo the mainstream recommendations of every transgender care professional on the planet. The existence of kids lamenting their incorrectly diagnosed gender dysphoria is, at best, sparsely documented in literature on the topic.

Note in the entire discussion, you've not one time substantiated your highly speculative argument that children are being misdiagnosed, incorrectly put on hormone blockers, suffer as a consequence. I'm very much disinterested in carrying on the discussion if you have nothing more substantial to say on the topic.

Those who ultimately decide not to transition - how well do they do? Are there any studies? Stats? Did anybody even bother to follow up on them, ever? Or are such individuals rare enough that it's not worth the effort to study?

I can't find a study on children who qualify for hormone blocking programs, but choose not to transition as adults. My inability to find these studies does not indicate that it isn't worth the time to study, and there's no need to poison the well with remarks like that -- transgender children are rather exceptional in their own right, said children on hormone blockers are even more so, incorrectly diagnosed even more so.

Most of the information I know on the subject comes from studies on precocious puberty, in which the safety of said drugs has already been well-established, which is further corroborated by essentially every piece scholarly research on involving hormone blockers as part of the treatment for transgender children.

In any case, detransition is fairly rare. Most people fall into one or more of these categories: people who do not believe they're able to pass, people who don't have the financial means, people without social or family support, unable to get a job, religous objections. I don't know much about these people, though a few people's personal accounts on trans messageboards indicates the decision isn't exactly easy or ideal. Fetishistic crossdressers and people who transition on impulse are most likely to report regrets.

 

[Checkmite]

Nevermind the lack of evidence supporting that assertion, the lack of evidence that a child would incorrectly claim to be transgender for years, the complete lack of any statistics whatsoever which substantiate an argument that systematic misdiagnosis harms people.

All the treatments for trans children are safe and completely reversible. So what's the actual harm of a misdiagnosis? At worst, a brief phase of gender play before they choose not to transition.

Here, let me try to answer these comments a bit more specifically.

As to the first: Yes, there is evidence; it was posted in this very thread in fact, on the first page, you yourself posted about the case of David Reimer, whose physicians were convinced by his parents - with the help of a biased psychologist - that he had successfully been reassigned and self-identified as a girl, and they were convinced enough to continue medical treatment, including hormonal treatment. Yes, it can happen.

There's also the problem that I call the "old beater" effect. Have you ever seen an acquaintance with a car that has lots of expensive problems, and suggested that he simply buy a new one, and he defers to the fact that he's "already put so much money into" his current, decrepit vehicle? It's not a logical argument at all, but it's the way most people think about money - across the board. So when parents are spending hundreds, which become thousands, of dollars delaying their child's puberty under the expectation that when he's old enough he will opt for reassignment, the longer the child remains on the treatment (and the more money the parents spend), the greater the pressure will be on the child to follow through with the intended result despite any uncertainty that may have developed in the meantime. Necessarily? No. But the possibility is there and real enough that it demands consideration.


Moving on. Let's revisit your list of benefits of puberty intervention:

In any case, there are three distinct advantages to transitioning early:

1) Transitioning early is to reduce years and years of untreated gender dysphoria.

2) Early interventions can prevent the development of secondary sexual characteristics which exacerbate gender dysphoria. Its much easier to masculinize a feminine body than feminize a masucline body.

Early transitioners tend to blend in extremely well (see Lynn Conways article), they tend to transition considerably easier than people later in life.

3) Early intervention can reduce the tremendous cost of fixing unwanted facial features. For transwomen, removing a beard with electrolysis takes about 150 hours at a cost of around $70/hr, facial feminization can cost between $25-40K. For transmen, double mastectomy and chest reconstruction can cost $8500. Frequently, trans women are unable to begin these surgeries until their 40s, 50s, or never.

You want to know what's wrong with this list? Well, I shouldn't say necessarily wrong; these certainly can be true as given - except for the bit about easier to masculinize a feminine body, given the truism that you can always remove bone that's there but can't increase bone that's not; though I digress - but do you know the one thing that absolutely must happen in order for them to be "benefits"? The patient must decide to be reassigned. If he or she doesn't - none of those things benefit him or her in the least.

Now, according to you this is just fine. Again, you say

All the treatments for trans children are safe and completely reversible. So what's the actual harm of a misdiagnosis? At worst, a brief phase of gender play before they choose not to transition.

At worst - that's it? Really, you think so? Let's see about that.

As evidence that these treatments are "safe and completely reversible", you repeatedly cite this "Standard of Care" thing, which claims that delaying puberty for any amount of time is perfectly safe based on the fact that delaying the puberty of children suffering from precocious puberty, and allowing it to restart when they reach an age appropriate for their current extent of development, seems to make everything turn out all right based on extensive studies. That's fine, but I'm not sure that necessarily extrapolates to restarting puberty a significant length of time after the normal age; and my uncertainty stands as valid because I can't find a single study or case report anywhere which sheds any light on that particular sort of scenario.

But let's for a moment presume, for the sake of discussion, that once the blockers are ended no matter how old you are, puberty will indeed resume and run its completely normal course in all respects. According to you this is the definition of "reversible", and that seems to be the absolute end of the argument as far as your concerned, from what I can tell by the way you've addressed it. Whatever they've been "missing", they will get back, period. Right?

But what exactly are the implications of this? Let's take a boy whose puberty was delayed at the age of 10 to "give him time to decide". Let's say he's now 16 and he has finally decided he wants to be a man - for whatever reason, that's the decision he comes to and he's resolved about it. So the treatments stop. Well obviously a couple of weeks off the blockers aren't going to return him to the development level of a typical 16 year old boy; he will be 16 with the development of a 10 year old. Not only does he not actually resemble a young woman; he doesn't resemble a young man of 16 either.

Now again let's assume puberty progresses normally. By 18 or 19, he will arrive at the developmental level of a 12-13 year old and will finally develop the ability to ejaculate. Not much use, as his sex organs will still be a ways too undersized to allow for effective or enjoyable intercourse - not really an issue at all for a 12 year old; but for a 19 year old, that may be a different story. Either the same year or a year later, at 20, his voice will begin to change, although his build will still be rather un-masculine compared to other 20-year-olds. Around this time or soon after, he starts getting hair under his armpits and may have to begin shaving his face. Around 22 his voice settles and he's finally caught up to a 16-year-old's development, which would be great if he weren't 22; perhaps genital size by this time won't be as much of an issue as it used to be and he won't still be too embarrassed to let female love interests see him naked. Maybe. His build is still developing though; by the time he's 25 or 26 he'll finally have achieved his adult stature and physique. Finally done with puberty at 26.

According to you, all of this is just fine. It may not be according to the man living through it. Do you not imagine that not being able to have a sexual relationship at 18 because you're afraid to let anyone see your preteen-level equipment would be at least as emotionally distressing and a barrier to integration for a man as growing facial hair might be to a woman? How is directly imposing such a situation not inherently harmful? And to add insult to injury, he paid significant amounts of money for this misfortune - or at least his family did. All this because of something he said when he was 9 years old.

I say, because of this, early-puberty "intervention" is inherently harmful by default. It's perfectly beneficial for someone who decides to complete their transition, but only because they decide to complete their transition; otherwise it's a disaster and a ticket to an entire additional decade of misery, which in my opinion makes it an irrational treatment when it's based solely on the expectation that someone who's 10 years old right now is going to make a specific decision in 8 years.

 

[Dessi]

Nevermind the lack of evidence supporting that assertion, the lack of evidence that a child would incorrectly claim to be transgender for years, the complete lack of any statistics whatsoever which substantiate an argument that systematic misdiagnosis harms people.

Here, let me try to answer these comments a bit more specifically.

As to the first: Yes, there is evidence; it was posted in this very thread in fact, on the first page, you yourself posted about the case of David Reimer, whose physicians were convinced by his parents - with the help of a biased psychologist - that he had successfully been reassigned and self-identified as a girl, and they were convinced enough to continue medical treatment, including hormonal treatment. Yes, it can happen.

David Reimer's case is rather exceptional: he was not transgender, not even misdiagnosed as such. He self-identified as a member of his biological sex, but due to his therapists incorrect belief that gender identity is socially constructed rather than innate, he was forced to live as a girl, resulting in gender dysphoria. In your own words, you can't just post other things that "kind of sound similar" as if they're the same thing and still get the points.

Reimer's case is one of the arguments in favor of treating transgender children, on the basis that gender identity is innate rather than learned. His case is also one of the reasons why trans children are treated with non-invasive, non-permanent interventions rather than giving them surgery the second they show signs of gender variance.

In any case, if there are trans children being harmed in a similar way as Reimer, would you mind citing a source to support the claim?

There's also the problem that I call the "old beater" effect. Have you ever seen an acquaintance with a car that has lots of expensive problems, and suggested that he simply buy a new one, and he defers to the fact that he's "already put so much money into" his current, decrepit vehicle? It's not a logical argument at all, but it's the way most people think about money - across the board. So when parents are spending hundreds, which become thousands, of dollars delaying their child's puberty under the expectation that when he's old enough he will opt for reassignment, the longer the child remains on the treatment (and the more money the parents spend), the greater the pressure will be on the child to follow through with the intended result despite any uncertainty that may have developed in the meantime. Necessarily? No. But the possibility is there and real enough that it demands consideration.

So where's the evidence this occurs?

Did you know a small number of people have a serious, sometimes fatal reaction to penicillin? Is that a good argument that no one should ever be prescribed it? Without knowing how misdiagnosis, mistreatment, and harm occurs, it seems rather short sighted to say that no child regardless of their individual circumstances should ever be given treatments which ostensibly do improve their lives.

In any case, there are three distinct advantages to transitioning early:

1) Transitioning early is to reduce years and years of untreated gender dysphoria.

2) Early interventions can prevent the development of secondary sexual characteristics which exacerbate gender dysphoria. Its much easier to masculinize a feminine body than feminize a masucline body.

Early transitioners tend to blend in extremely well (see Lynn Conways article), they tend to transition considerably easier than people later in life.

3) Early intervention can reduce the tremendous cost of fixing unwanted facial features. For transwomen, removing a beard with electrolysis takes about 150 hours at a cost of around $70/hr, facial feminization can cost between $25-40K. For transmen, double mastectomy and chest reconstruction can cost $8500. Frequently, trans women are unable to begin these surgeries until their 40s, 50s, or never.

You want to know what's wrong with this list? Well, I shouldn't say necessarily wrong; these certainly can be true as given - except for the bit about easier to masculinize a feminine body, given the truism that you can always remove bone that's there but can't increase bone that's not; though I digress - but do you know the one thing that absolutely must happen in order for them to be "benefits"? The patient must decide to be reassigned. If he or she doesn't - none of those things benefit him or her in the least.

Regarding the bit on masuclinizing a feminine body, transmen transition very attractively. T is an amazing drug. "Its easier to dig a hole than build a pole", that much is true, vaginoplasty+labiaplasty can be so amazingly done that even a gynecologist wouldn't know the difference until you told him, phalloplasty isn't quite as caught up.

Regarding "one thing that absolutely must happen in order for them to be "benefits"? The patient must decide to be reassigned", the statement is false. Nevermind the fact that not all trans people choose (or can choose) to have gender reassignment, on what basis can you speak for all non-op trans people and tell them transitioning means nothing until they've had surgery? Seems rather judgemental to paint all trans people with such a wide brush.

At worst - that's it? Really, you think so? Let's see about that.

As evidence that these treatments are "safe and completely reversible", you repeatedly cite this "Standard of Care" thing, which claims that delaying puberty for any amount of time is perfectly safe based on the fact that delaying the puberty of children suffering from precocious puberty, and allowing it to restart when they reach an age appropriate for their current extent of development, seems to make everything turn out all right based on extensive studies. That's fine, but I'm not sure that necessarily extrapolates to restarting puberty a significant length of time after the normal age; and my uncertainty stands as valid because I can't find a single study or case report anywhere which sheds any light on that particular sort of scenario.

But let's for a moment presume, for the sake of discussion, that once the blockers are ended no matter how old you are, puberty will indeed resume and run its completely normal course in all respects. According to you this is the definition of "reversible", and that seems to be the absolute end of the argument as far as your concerned, from what I can tell by the way you've addressed it. Whatever they've been "missing", they will get back, period. Right?

But what exactly are the implications of this? Let's take a boy whose puberty was delayed at the age of 10 to "give him time to decide". Let's say he's now 16 and he has finally decided he wants to be a man - for whatever reason, that's the decision he comes to and he's resolved about it. So the treatments stop. Well obviously a couple of weeks off the blockers aren't going to return him to the development level of a typical 16 year old boy; he will be 16 with the development of a 10 year old. Not only does he not actually resemble a young woman; he doesn't resemble a young man of 16 either.

Now again let's assume puberty progresses normally. By 18 or 19, he will arrive at the developmental level of a 12-13 year old and will finally develop the ability to ejaculate. Not much use, as his sex organs will still be a ways too undersized to allow for effective or enjoyable intercourse - not really an issue at all for a 12 year old; but for a 19 year old, that may be a different story. Either the same year or a year later, at 20, his voice will begin to change, although his build will still be rather un-masculine compared to other 20-year-olds. Around this time or soon after, he starts getting hair under his armpits and may have to begin shaving his face. Around 22 his voice settles and he's finally caught up to a 16-year-old's development, which would be great if he weren't 22; perhaps genital size by this time won't be as much of an issue as it used to be and he won't still be too embarrassed to let female love interests see him naked. Maybe. His build is still developing though; by the time he's 25 or 26 he'll finally have achieved his adult stature and physique. Finally done with puberty at 26.

Rather amazing case study you've found, can you cite a source?

My request is not as facetious as it sounds.

- You don't have evidence to support this particular set of events.
- You don't even know how a child would be treated even if their puberty were delayed until they were 16, whether their puberty would be allowed to run its normal course or whether they'd recieve testosterone supplements (which are known to rapidly masculinize transmen).
- You have no evidence to support the view a person in this position would have a traditionally masculine gender identity, rather than an intensely gender queer identity with no desire to transition.
- You have no evidence to support the claim that a non-trans person would delay their puberty until they 16 in the first place.
- For that matter, even if all the unlikely conditions of your hypothetical hold, you don't even have evidence that a person in such a position would feel that he had been wronged. Believe it or not, there are detransitioned trans people who are genuinely sympathetic to the needs of trans people, they will defend tooth and nail others' right to treatment. Your hypothetical person need not generalize his experience as a rule which applies to all people.

If you're going to make any of the claims above, you need to substantiate them. We could talk speculative hypotheticals all day, but what would be the point that when it comes to the needs of actual people? Nothing. That's why, if you're going to make an argument that young trans people shouldn't have access to treatment, you need to ground it in some tangible fact or evidence.

I say, because of this, early-puberty "intervention" is inherently harmful by default. It's perfectly beneficial for someone who decides to complete their transition, but only because they decide to complete their transition; otherwise it's a disaster and a ticket to an entire additional decade of misery, which in my opinion makes it an irrational treatment when it's based solely on the expectation that someone who's 10 years old right now is going to make a specific decision in 8 years.

Have ever actually met a transgender child? Ever met the type who are referred to gender therapists? In almost all circumstances, their gender identity is screamingly obvious. Gender therapists aren't exactly quacks, children are rigorously evaluated to determine whether have a gender dysphoria, whether the dysphoria persists.

It seems doubtful that children are being systematically misdiagnosed and harmed as a consequence, the lack of any case studies undermines your entire "inherently harmful" argument. Whatever number of children there are, they're certainly in the microminority, the harm to them is unspecified and (to my knowledge) undocumented, whereas the harm of untreated gender dysphoria is well-documented for 5 decades.

To be blunt, you don't have evidence to substantiate your claims against treating trans children. If you're a skeptical person, you have to conclude that your position is false.

In the mean time, the benefit of early intervention is well documented in a tremendous amount of scholarly research on the subject. If you can't support any statement above, I have no more interest discussing the subject with you.

 

[PhantomWolf]

This is the thing I don't get.

On one side we have:

• A very few might have a traumatic time going through a late and accelerated puberty if they decide not to transistion after years believing they will.

On the other we have:

All TG's having to undergo -

• Expensive plastic surgery.
• Expensive non-surgical treatments and training.
• Some characteristics non-reversible.
• For some it might extremely difficult to transistion at all, for instance a transwoman might end up 6'3" and very masculine looking.
• Have to go through the trauma of their bodies "mutating" on them.

I can't even believe there is an argument here. It's a complete no-brainer.

 

[Checkmite]

David Reimer's case is rather exceptional: he was not transgender, not even misdiagnosed as such. He self-identified as a member of his biological sex, but due to his therapists incorrect belief that gender identity is socially constructed rather than innate, he was forced to live as a girl, resulting in gender dysphoria. In your own words, you can't just post other things that "kind of sound similar" as if they're the same thing and still get the points.

Reimer's case is one of the arguments in favor of treating transgender children, on the basis that gender identity is innate rather than learned. His case is also one of the reasons why trans children are treated with non-invasive, non-permanent interventions rather than giving them surgery the second they show signs of gender variance.

No, that's not correct at all. Reimer did not have gender dysphoria; he was both mentally and biologically male, which disqualifies him under the definition you provided in an earlier post. The fact that Reimer was not transgender makes him a 100% QED; if you don't believe so then you've simply forgotten the concern I was using his case as an illustrative example for: the case of a child not being transgender, but being presented as having gender dysphoria and being medically treated for gender dysphoria because of the actions and misrepresentations of his parents (and psychologist, as a bonus), for whatever agenda. Why they did what they did doesn't matter for the purpose of supporting my concern; what matters is what they did. Reimer did not have gender dysphoria; he was treated for it anyway at the behest of his parents.

In any case, if there are trans children being harmed in a similar way as Reimer, would you mind citing a source to support the claim?

"It only happened once, so it's nothing to worry about" in other words?

If I've read the story right, when Reimer made the decision to reject his reassignment he simply stopped seeing his doctors and getting his hormone treatments, and nothing more was written about his case for the rest of his childhood. After he became an adult he sought out "detransition" at his own expense, but for privacy reasons it was never publicized as a case study at the time. All the information we have about his latter life wasn't revealed until afterwards when he decided by himself to write a book, yes?

I suppose you think it's unlikely the same situation happens with some nontrans children who are harmed by dint of having been subjected to puberty delay for what turned out ultimately to be no reason, but decided not to write books about it.

Rather amazing case study you've found, can you cite a source?

My request is not as facetious as it sounds.

Yes it is. What I've described is the normal course of puberty, which according to you is what would take place when whenever the hormone blockers are stopped. Here's the Wikipedia article on puberty, which describes the process. The only differences are the ages - which, of course, would have to be different, since we're talking about a case where it's intentionally delayed and restarted several years later.

- You don't have evidence to support this particular set of events.

See the link above

- You don't even know how a child would be treated even if their puberty were delayed until they were 16, whether their puberty would be allowed to run its normal course or whether they'd recieve testosterone supplements (which are known to rapidly masculinize transmen).

Ducks the point. The fact that the condition they're placed in can be separately treated doesn't make the fact that they were harmed go away; in fact, treatment being necessary underscores the fact that there was harm. Which would not have existed at all if their body hadn't been interfered with.

- You have no evidence to support the view a person in this position would have a traditionally masculine gender identity, rather than an intensely gender queer identity with no desire to transition.

That's really your answer to this? "Well, anyone who decides to remain male would actually still consider themselves queer anyway, so it's not like they would care about late puberty."??? How is that any less a complete supposition than my original scenario?

- You have no evidence to support the claim that a non-trans person would delay their puberty until they 16 in the first place.

Reimer was non-trans and did not start living as a male until he was 15, according to the article you posted; but it doesn't even matter: your argument that delayed puberty is unharmful and reversible wasn't qualified with "up to a certain point". We can freely examine the implications of a person receiving the treatment and ultimately deciding against transition at 13, 16, 18, 20, or any age in between.

- For that matter, even if all the unlikely conditions of your hypothetical hold, you don't even have evidence that a person in such a position would feel that he had been wronged. Believe it or not, there are detransitioned trans people who are genuinely sympathetic to the needs of trans people, they will defend tooth and nail others' right to treatment. Your hypothetical person need not generalize his experience as a rule which applies to all people.

But if he does feel wronged, what about his feelings regarding himself? Dismissible because there's not many like him, so oh well?

If you're going to make any of the claims above, you need to substantiate them. We could talk speculative hypotheticals all day, but what would be the point that when it comes to the needs of actual people? Nothing. That's why, if you're going to make an argument that young trans people shouldn't have access to treatment, you need to ground it in some tangible fact or evidence.

No, I'm sorry, that's not how it works. You claimed, supported by your links, that delayed puberty is

1. For the purpose of giving a child more time to decide what he wants to do about his or her gender, and

2. Perfectly safe and completely reversible, without qualification.

These statements imply the following things, respectively:

1. That there exist some who will choose to decide not to change their biological gender, and

2. There exist some who, for whatever reason, would want to reverse their delayed puberty at some unspecified point.

This allows for the following two points of discussion, respectively:

1. What happens when such a child decides to remain their biological gender, and

2. What the implications of reversed delayed puberty are, whatever age it occurs.

They're free targets for discussion. You can't dismiss a hypothetical scenario by pointing out it's not the only possible scenario; that's a dodge.

Have ever actually met a transgender child? Ever met the type who are referred to gender therapists? In almost all circumstances, their gender identity is screamingly obvious. Gender therapists aren't exactly quacks, children are rigorously evaluated to determine whether have a gender dysphoria, whether the dysphoria persists.

Then why did Reimer's doctors fail to notice the fact that he did not self-identify as a girl and continued to treat him as if he did?

It seems doubtful that children are being systematically misdiagnosed and harmed as a consequence, the lack of any case studies undermines your entire "inherently harmful" argument. Whatever number of children there are, they're certainly in the microminority, the harm to them is unspecified and (to my knowledge) undocumented, whereas the harm of untreated gender dysphoria is well-documented for 5 decades.

Is it possible such cases are undocumented because the possibility of their existence is summarily dismissed - just as you've done - and nobody follows up?

To be blunt, you don't have evidence to substantiate your claims against treating trans children. If you're a skeptical person, you have to conclude that your position is false.

Ummm, I believe I started this discussion being skeptical of your claims that treating it is fine and perfectly reversible. I'm not making "claims"; I'm giving reasons for my choosing to remain dubious about yours.

In the mean time, the benefit of early intervention is well documented in a tremendous amount of scholarly research on the subject. If you can't support any statement above, I have no more interest discussing the subject with you.

I've stated my concerns. You've handwaved them, derided them, and summarily dismissed them, but as of yet have not addressed them in such a way that alleviates them in my opinion; therefore, my stance on the issue remains unchanged.

Your opinion on the subject obviously is based on a strong sympathy for people who need support, so I'm not going to accuse you of callously disregarding the plight of people who have never been shown to even exist as far as you know. But the possibility that they exist is tacitly acknowledged in the assuring language used to support these medical procedures, which is enough for me to at least entertain some hypothetical concern for what happens to them; I find that such people would be harmed by the procedure more than helped, and that this fact is completely disregarded by those who support the procedure - which frankly makes statements like that the procedure "gives children time to decide" and that they're "safe and reversible" seem intellectually dishonest and misleading. I cannot even ask you what would hypothetically happen to such people; all I get is refusal to play along, flippant redesign of my scenarios and a demand for evidence such people exist at all.

It is well that you've lost interest in the discussion, as I'm rapidly reaching the same point. Ultimately, I'm not in such a position that my not supporting these procedures has any effect on anything. But when the matter's up for open discussion I'm going to offer my opinion. Since I've done so, I suppose there's not much point in continuing to talk past each other.

 

[iknownothing]

Puberty is a horrific experience for transgender teens because their well-meaning but misguided support systems emphasize that it will make them "look" less like their mental gender and therefore is essentially some kind of biological boogeyman.

Why do you assume that it comes from the child's support systems and not from the actual child?

It makes no sense for a person who's comfortable being a female in a male body before puberty to suddenly become horrified by being a female in a male body during puberty.

Why do you assume that the child is comfortable being in a female body?

the concern I was using his case as an illustrative example for: the case of a child not being transgender, but being presented as having gender dysphoria and being medically treated for gender dysphoria because of the actions and misrepresentations of his parents (and psychologist, as a bonus), for whatever agenda. Why they did what they did doesn't matter for the purpose of supporting my concern; what matters is what they did. Reimer did not have gender dysphoria; he was treated for it anyway at the behest of his parents.

When was he presented as having gender dysphoria?

His case was not an example of doctors treating gender dysphoria. It was an example people doing radical, invasive things to him in order to trick him into changing his gender identity. He was never consulted as to what he wanted.

 

[Checkmite]

Why do you assume that it comes from the child's support systems and not from the actual child?

Where both are possible, what about cases where it does come from the former rather than the latter?

Why do you assume that the child is comfortable being in a female body?

The girl in the OP seems to be comfortable being a girl with a male body.

When was he presented as having gender dysphoria?

His case was not an example of doctors treating gender dysphoria. It was an example people doing radical, invasive things to him in order to trick him into changing his gender identity. He was never consulted as to what he wanted.

Yes it was such an example; very obviously it was. His psychologist and parents repeatedly lied and claimed he was mentally female. The endocrinologists and other doctors that were treating him after his disfigurement - by giving him estrogen and such to promote the development of a female body - were separate, not involved in or aware of the parents' and psychologist's agenda and were transitioning him from male to female because his parents and the psychologist convinced them he identified as female as he lived his whole childhood as a female.

 

[Pup]

Yes it was such an example; very obviously it was. His psychologist and parents repeatedly lied and claimed he was mentally female. The endocrinologists and other doctors that were treating him after his disfigurement - by giving him estrogen and such to promote the development of a female body - were separate, not involved in or aware of the parents' and psychologist's agenda and were transitioning him from male to female because his parents and the psychologist convinced them he identified as female as he lived his whole childhood as a female.

I think the example of David Reimer shows something more significant. He was an example of someone with a (presumably) male brain, who was socially conditioned as a female, appeared pretty much female physically, and was given hormones to mimic the normal changes in a female body.

In other words, he was like a typical female to male TG person, because he grew up with a male brain in a body that was, reasonably speaking, female.

I think that most people, looking objectively at the case, would say that if such a person started complaining that she didn't feel female, actually felt male, wasn't happy, etc., the doctors should have stopped treating "her" with female hormones, even if "she" was underage and legally unable to direct "her" own medical treatment at that time. The hormones would be doing more harm than good.

So, to continue the parallel, when a female-to-male TG person makes the same complaints, it doesn't seem unreasonable to do the same thing, except in that case, it would mean blocking the hormones rather than stopping their administration. But psychologically, the positive outcome should be the same.

 

[Gazpacho]

When was he presented as having gender dysphoria?

Intersex patients are excluded from GID diagnosis but aside from that he met the criteria.

 

[quadraginta]

Intersex patients are excluded from GID diagnosis but aside from that he met the criteria.

I can't get this statement to make any sense. What criteria did David Reimer meet to satisfy a diagnosis of gender dysphoria? He identified with his birth gender in spite of strenuous efforts to compel him not to.

The psychologist who treated him, John Money, was a proponent of the belief that gender identity was a social and culturally based attitude which could be manipulated by training. The Reimer case demonstrated that, at least for David Reimer, he was wrong.

Money believed that you could decide what gender you wanted a child to identify with and then teach them to do so. His failure with David Reimer only shows that this may not be true. The more modern consensus which Dessi and others here have been describing is to let the individual determine for themselves what their gender identity 'fit' is, and then support them in that choice.

This is the antithesis of what was done to David Reimer.

 

[Gazpacho]

I can't get this statement to make any sense. What criteria did David Reimer meet to satisfy a diagnosis of gender dysphoria? He identified with his birth gender in spite of strenuous efforts to compel him not to.

Way to answer your own question. The diagnostic criteria refer to assigned gender, not birth gender.

 

[iknownothing]

Yes it was such an example; very obviously it was.

"Very obviously" he is an example of a child who was born in a gender that did not match his self-image?

The only thing "very obvious" about him is that his own perception of his gender was unshakable, no matter how much people tried to force him into the other gender role.

His psychologist and parents repeatedly lied and claimed he was mentally female. The endocrinologists and other doctors that were treating him after his disfigurement - by giving him estrogen and such to promote the development of a female body - were separate, not involved in or aware of the parents' and psychologist's agenda and were transitioning him from male to female because his parents and the psychologist convinced them he identified as female as he lived his whole childhood as a female.

Okay, what you are talking about is deception, and adults doing invasive things without ever bothering to consult with the child. I think it goes without saying that such an approach is very wrong.

 

[Pup]

I'm so puzzled on why Reimer met the criteria for gender dysphoria, I don't even know if people are saying he would be male-to-female GD or female-to-male GD.

Would he be male-to-female because doctors assumed after the accident that he would be unhappy living as a male in his less-than-male body, and therefore they used surgery and hormones to make his body appear more female?

Or would he be female-to-male because he said he was unhappy living as a female, despite being socialized as one and resembling one, so doctors helped him transition to male?

While some of the hormone and surgery techniques were the same as those used to treat people with GD, I don't see that he himself actual fit the criteria. Unless one could say he was incorrectly diagnosed with it after the accident and forced to have treatment, which of course proved unsuccessful due to the wrong diagnosis.

 

[quadraginta]

Way to answer your own question. The diagnostic criteria refer to assigned gender, not birth gender.

Reimer never expressed any desire to be assigned a gender other than his birth gender. That is step number one in the diagnostic criteria.

 

[Gazpacho]

Reimer never expressed any desire to be assigned a gender other than his birth gender. That is step number one in the diagnostic criteria.

There is no reference in the DSM criteria to "birth gender" in step number one or anywhere else. It's about how the patient was assigned and what the patient feels about the assignment. I know the case history. What's your point?

 

[quadraginta]

There is no reference in the DSM criteria to "birth gender" in step number one or anywhere else. It's about how the patient was assigned and what the patient feels about the assignment. I know the case history. What's your point?

Maybe if I had said "the one he started with" instead of "birth gender".

I think you are being deliberately obtuse. My point is that Reimer's issues were a result of mistreatment or at the very least misguided treatment, not any conformance with modern DSM criteria and procedures.

You say you know the case history. Are you suggesting that "what the patient feels" was properly taken into account in his case? My understanding of the facts suggests that it most emphatically was not. Quite the opposite.

 

[Gazpacho]

I think you are being deliberately obtuse.

I'd say one of us is.

Reimer underwent a further course of treatment after he stopped seeing Dr. Money. Do you understand that?

 

[Niggle]

Puberty is a horrific experience for transgender teens because their well-meaning but misguided support systems emphasize that it will make them "look" less like their mental gender and therefore is essentially some kind of biological boogeyman. It makes no sense for a person who's comfortable being a female in a male body before puberty to suddenly become horrified by being a female in a male body during puberty. Do you understand? There's no reason for such a change in attitude, unless they've been talked into being horrified.

<snip>

You don't get it. Before puberty, the body is pretty unsexed. Boy clothes and girl clothes are pretty much shaped the same. There's still hope that the changes won't happen. Then puberty comes along, and there's no escaping it; you're stuck in the wrong body. Yes, it feels like mutilation. Betrayal by one's own body. You can tell the child all you want that it's perfectly normal to have that body. But you can't make him/her feel it. A support system only goes so far; it can't actually change the child's mind no matter how reassuring it sounds.

You cannot and will not understand this. You've obviously never been there. So listen to those who have.

 

[Giordano]

I can't get this statement to make any sense. What criteria did David Reimer meet to satisfy a diagnosis of gender dysphoria? He identified with his birth gender in spite of strenuous efforts to compel him not to.

The psychologist who treated him, John Money, was a proponent of the belief that gender identity was a social and culturally based attitude which could be manipulated by training. The Reimer case demonstrated that, at least for David Reimer, he was wrong.

Money believed that you could decide what gender you wanted a child to identify with and then teach them to do so. His failure with David Reimer only shows that this may not be true. The more modern consensus which Dessi and others here have been describing is to let the individual determine for themselves what their gender identity 'fit' is, and then support them in that choice.

This is the antithesis of what was done to David Reimer.

Exactly! David Reimer demonstrates exactly what Dessi and others here have been patiently pointing out.