I’m not sure you understood what I meant. The study I linked to was on kids who had serious enough problems to be taken to a gender clinic, where many were diagnosed with childhood GD, which requires that they be persistent as children. A significant, not a tiny, number still desisted as adults. It’s not rare, it’s not extraordinary. Some kids persist, some don’t.
Informing the public requires giving them the facts, not misleading them because you don’t trust them to do the right thing if they know the truth.
With all due respect, I suggest doing some real research on the subject before concluding anything. You shouldn’t be taking anyone‘s word as gospel.
It is not very difficult to get a prescription for cross-sex hormones. I just googled and found this guide on informed consent, which says this:
By studying best practices across the nation and analyzing internal data and patient feedback, we designed a care model to better serve our transgender and gender non-conforming patients 18 and older called Transgender Hormone Informed Consent. The treatment protocol is designed to reduce barriers to care, improve the informed consent process and provide even better services to our community by shortening the process to receive hormone replacement therapy in an affirming and affordable way.
One of those barriers to care is the requirement for therapy before taking hormones, as evident here:
In many places in the past, patients had to get a letter from a therapist saying that they could get HT before they could get hormones. Howard Brown does not believe that people need therapy before they can make a decision about whether HT is right for them. Howard Brown believes that people should be given complete, accurate information, and supported in making their own decisions about whether to get HT or not.
Gatekeeping standards have dropped; this is indisputable. Nowadays you don’t even need to go to a clinic to get drugs because there is high enough demand for self-medication that it’s easy to procure stuff off the internet. And this is a widely normalized practice on the internet.
Unless you have data to support this as a net positive rather than a net harm, you’re not going to be able to move me from my position of skepticism that things are better for gender dysphoric (nondysphoric) people.
I think it’s going to take a long time for the language issues to be figured out. Take the example of my aunt’s ex. About 35 years ago, she married a person who was physically male and who, at that time, presented as male, and who I think also identified as male (though I can’t tell exactly what’s in someone else’s mind). And I’m avoiding using pronouns for this person in this timeframe, because I’m not sure what pronouns are appropriate for past references to a person who has since transitioned. Anyway, the two of them had two biological children together. In the decades since, they divorced (though stayed on relatively good terms), the ex came out as female, and their son got married. At the wedding, the ex introduced herself as “father of the groom”. Was that the correct terminology? Eliphino. “Sperm donor” would certainly have been accurate, but who wants to describe themselves that way? “Parent of the groom” would also have been accurate, but sounds stilted. “Mother”? He already has one mother, and at the time this person was actively parenting, e didn’t call emself that. So maybe her calling herself a “father” really was the best terminology. Or maybe someday we’ll figure out a better way to say it, and that’ll become the new normal. Or maybe we’ll just stop caring about the distinction. I dunno.
This question was answered by @Demon Tree. Mastectomies happen often enough on minors that there is no basis for treating it as preposterous out of hand.
While hardly a very common scenario, “Father of the Groom” doesn’t seem like a particularly wrong label in this case. She is the biological father of the groom. If circumstances of her gender identity have changed in the interim, it doesn’t change her original role and if it’s fine with her and her son, then anybody who remains confused by it can draw their own intuitive conclusions or discreetly consult with someone in attendance who is more familiar with the family history. In short, I’m not sure this is that much of a challenge to language as it may appear if people decide not to make it a distinction to be deliberately obtuse about.
Breast reduction surgery results in smaller breasts that are still functional (still sensitive to touch, still capable of milk production). The scarring is also minimal if performed correctly.
A double mastectomy results in no breasts. The sensorium is drastically diminished and the scarring is often severe. Because the surgery is more involved than reduction, more complications are expected. The recovery period is longer. The pain experienced during the recovery period is a lot more intense. For all of these reasons, the likelihood of regret is much higher with a double mastectomy than breast reduction surgery.
But more importantly, a 14-year-old who hates their newly developed breasts might develop a tolerance for them given a couple more years of maturity (and possible sexual experience). But a 14-year-old who is suffering from chronic pain under the burden of very large breasts isn’t going to outgrow that pain. The pain just going to get worse for her, especially if her breasts continue to grow.
I’m not comparing them in that way. I’m well aware they are different surgeries.
But - both are performed by qualified medical practitioners, so both fall under the grouping of “medical decisions” and the real disingenuity lies in pretending only one is medical and one is - what, homeopathy?
I’m trying to find out where they draw the line. Which was why it was a question specifically directed at them. But by all means, feel free to continue to put your own oar in.
They “might”. Or, you know, the other thing, where they never make it to 15.
The underlying reasons for performing one or the other is dramatically different and results dramatically more consequential. I know you know this. I’m not sure why you’re trying to pretend otherwise by asking the question you’re asking. But, as you’ve pointed out, you’re not asking me. So I’m happy to drop the subject.
I don’t actually know that the results are “dramatically” more consequential, since I have experience with neither and it’s highly subjective, but I suspect in its way it’s just as consequential for the 14 y.o with 36JJs as it is for the trans teen. Yes, as monstro pointed out, one is a bigger functional impact. And that should be taken into consideration in the pre-surgery evaluations. But should not be a reason for denying the surgery in all cases, IMO.
But the underlying reasons aren’t always that “dramatically” different, either - body image plays a large role in many, if not most, teenage breast reductions.
All that is to say that “dramatically” is just a meaningless intensifier, here.
Can you provide any proof that gender dysphoric teenagers kill themselves (who wouldn’t have otherwise killed themselves) when their families are supportive of their gender nonconforming clothing/grooming and respectful of preferred pronoun usage, but nope out on surgery? Do families have to cosign absolutely every single thing their kids want to prevent them from killing themselves, or is it possible that families can do 99% of everything, but still decide to delay drastic and unnecessary cosmetic surgery until the kid at least has a frickin’ driver’s license?
According to this source, 44% of adolescents diagnosed with body dysmorphic disorder attempt suicide. Are you in favor of indulging all the cosmetic surgery desires of a kid with BDD just to keep them committing suicide? Or do you think it’s possible that giving comestic surgery to a person with BDD will likely not improve their dysmorphia and may even make things worse for them, possibly pushing them to suicide? Because this is something that also appears to be supported with some evidence.
I think we’re seeing a lot of kids being diagnosed with gender dysphoria when really they are suffering from BDD. Worse, we’re allowing kids to diagnose themselves with gender dysphoria (because it seems like the internet has turned everyone into an expert), thus allowing them to determine their own treatment plans. We do this because people like you constantly use the threat of suicide to underscore the importance of Doing Something. But we would never let the fear of suicide influence us with respect to how we treat and conceptualize other psychological disorders. Probably because gender dysphoria is no longer being conceptualized as a psychological disorder, which to me is a serious problem. It’s becoming less of a diagnosis and more of a political label.
Unlike the OP, I don’t think we were more enlightened about transgenderism in the past, but I do think if we don’t start becoming more critical-minded about the science of gender identity, we are going to do more harm than good.
FYI, this would not be sound medical practice. The average age of menarche is 12 in the U.S, and it’s typical for other signs of puberty (like pubic hair) to show up years earlier than that. Giving puberty blockers to a girl who is actually perfectly normal, quite frankly, would be crazy. Drugs that disrupt the endocrine system cause adverse side effects that have to be weighed against theoretical benefits to delaying puberty a few years. There is no such thing as a free lunch when it comes to medicating a young person.
I think that part of the deal with your memories may be indeed that it was not something about which we would have been extensively exposed to thorough discussion at that time in our lives and in history. We’d only get to know a very sanitized/dumbed-down version of what was up. I was in my teens in the mid-late 70s and I certainly recall that the aspect of the LGBT facing actual violent danger to life was kept quiet in the “mainstream”.
And I think what may be at play is that as the culture has moved away from “let’s pretend we don’t see that”, now that the pro- side is more visible and socially acceptable, the anti- side doubles down on the hard line and becomes more vocal in resisting the motion in that direction.
I can’t prove that specific thing, because the specific thing you ask has not been studied. But I do know that teens with gender dysphoria and body dissatisfaction are at higher risk for suicide. And I do also know that the higher risk is reduced by having supportive parents. But not completely so. So I am comfortable saying some of those 14 yos might not make it to 15 without needing a more specific study. Note: I’m not saying transition-or-suicide. I’m quite certain some do “develop a tolerance”. And others live lives of complete misery until they’re old enough, or rich enough, or certain enough, to do it for themselves.
But I do see the game here - you’re free to say they “might” develop a tolerance, cite unseen, but I suggest some might not and it’s all “prove a negative - by mind-reading”.
Your mind-reading needs work.
I didn’t say anything about indulging every kid. I’m a strong advocate of a period of analysis and counseling first.
I suspect that this is a big part of it. I’m probably around the OP’s age, maybe a couple of years older, and there were only two transgender people I had even heard of back then – the aforementioned Christine Jorgensen and Renee Richards. The first time I remember even hearing about the concept was around 1974 (I would have been 9), and seeing a TV interview with a transgender woman (it may well have been Jorgensen).
I remember jokes about “going to Scandinavia for surgery and coming back as a woman,” but the entire concept was, from my memory, something that was seen as weird and maybe some sort of mental illness. The idea that there was a much larger number of transgender people out there (many of whom were not having transition surgery) was just not out there in the general culture, as I remember it.
To answer the OP, things are much better today for those who don’t fit neatly into their cis gender assignments than they used to be. The proof is the enormous number of people coming out, or even exploring their gender identity. That used to be pretty much a social death sentence.
I have a 40-something friend who, with the aid of a lot of therapy, decided to identify as a non-gender-conforming man. (Having been assigned male at birth, but never having been comfortable with that.) He tells me he’s in a funny place, because most of the other people exploring their gender identity are either older adults whose spouse has died, and who are just now exploring the option of publicly identifying as the gender they always felt most pulled to, and 20-somethings who are jumping right in with no fear.
I think in a few more years we will all know some trans people, just as in the 80s people suddenly discovered that they knew a few gay people. Because it’s enough safer to “come out” that trans people are doing it.
What about all the people like my friend, who didn’t dare tell his parents how he felt, but didn’t “desist”, and has finally come out at age 40? Or his friends in their 70s who are finally coming out (and often transitioning) now that their spouse is deceased?
It does make me question that. In fact, I suspect that if I were 20 I would identify as non-binary. But I’ve spent nearly 6 decades living as a gender-non-conforming woman, so I think I’ll continue doing that.
Yes, and I think it’s a wonderful thing. Gatekeeping is often very destructive.
Well, it doesn’t have anything to do with sexual identity, but it’s not all that straightforward. It’s a choice, with tradeoffs.
I’m pretty sure this is false. When I was in my late 20s I looked into having breast reduction surgery due to physical discomfort caused by my large breasts. I lost interest in it when I learned that it would mean I couldn’t nurse. At that point, I planned to have kids in the near future, and decided I could put up with the discomfort a few more years.
Maybe it’s just a chance that you can’t nurse, but I don’t think so. I think breast reduction surgery (unlike breast enhancement surgery) damages a lot of the vascular tissue and prevent the breasts from ever working as milk-providers.
Breast reduction surgery does usually leave you with nipples that are sensitive to touch, but my SIL had it done and lost all sensation in one nipple. So there’s a risk of losing that, as well.
Also… I my understanding is that “top surgery” to “remove” the breasts of transmen usually spares the nipple.
This article from 2013 (which investigated some side issue of whether obese patients needed to lose weight prior to top-surgery) was “A retrospective review of 145 consecutive patients who underwent mastectomy with free nipple graft was conducted.” That “free nipple graft” means they kept their nipples and areolas.
This reference says that a risk of transmasculine top surgery is that you might lose nipple sensation (or lose the nipple, or die from anesthesia) but it seems clear that the intent is to preserve a cosmetically and sexually functioning nipple: