Do you support adults, with input from doctors, making medical decisions on behalf of their children? That’s a simple yes or no question. And don’t quibble about how medical decisions have both pros and cons: That’s a given that everyone already knows, and is the reason why someone needs to make a decision to begin with.
So, should parents be able to make those decisions for their children?
…the guidelines are all about simple human decency. It takes very little effort to listen to trans people, to listen to trans kids, to listen to the science, and to do the right thing.
My mistake. I was confusing dates. The 2022 date is when the NY Times vouched for the authenticity of the laptop. And I think that the WaPo and NYT stories were pretty much the extent of their coverage. And I don’t think they did much with the Tony Bobulinski video that appeared on C-SPAN. One source discussing the MSM’s dereliction of duty is a person that used to be a darling of the left, Glenn Greenwald. Matt Taibi, also). I couldn’t find GG’s initial article, but here he is discussing the malfeasance:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vk1rSvnvXoY
For all, the laptop was brought up as an example of MSM bias. That is all. As it is not germaine to the trans discussion, I’ll leave it there.
I would guess that lower bone density can be treated if it becomes a problem. I lost 6 centimetre in height before I got diagnosed with calcium loss in the spine, but nothing the last 4 years after I got treatment.
My puberty was around 5 and a half decades ago, though, and came naturally.
You could save everyone a lot of time if you posted this much more often.
And nothing else.
Comparing this study to the one magellan0 is pushing, and leaving aside the fact that yours is from a legitimate journal and his is from a garbage pay to publish journal, there also seems to be a big difference in the questions being asked. Your cite is based on people who actually transitioned and whether they might transition back while his is based on those who entered the clinic for treatment with dysphoria, and did not recieve hormone treatment how many still had it several years later. Both of these groups are highly self selected and inertia might play a role.
On the self selection aspect, deciding to socially transition is a big step beyond simply seeking treatment for dysphoria. Further selecting for those specifically that did not take puberty blockers will further bias the sample set towards those with milder forms of dysphoria. An analogy might be “Of those people who had a positive initial mamogram but did not receive cancer treatment, the vast majority were cancer free three years later”. Completely accurate since most mammograms are false positives, and those who do have a cancer diagnosis would have been treated for it. But using this to conclude that therefore we shouldn’t treat cancer is foolish.
As to the interia aspect. I think this works both ways. The effort both to transition and re-transition is significant, so that once someone has gone through puberty and are to a large extent stuck with the body they’ve got, they might decided to make the best of a bad situation and stick with it. While those who have transitioned are more likely to stick with that decision as well. The analogy would be to conclude that the low rate of divorce in arranged marriage means that there is no benefit in being able to choose your spouse.
Yes, this really is it. There’s no specific law outlawing, say, unnecessary amputations, because medical ethics and malpractice laws already cover that sort of thing (really anything in which a doctor behaves inappropriately). There’s nothing unique about treatment of trans children that should warrant government stepping in and telling parents and doctors that they NO LONGER have the right to determine what is best for their children.
@magellan01, if you disagree with the above, what part, specifically, do you disagree with? Why should treatment of trans people be treated differently than every other type of medical intervention?
Well that is absolutely not true at all and you should be ashamed for putting out these blatant lies.
There is something unique, and that’s transphobia.
For a while I was annoyed that this thread had turned from folks talking about Republican attacks against trans people to folks attacking (and defending) trans people. Then Magellan brought up Hunter Biden’s Laptop I realized no, this is still entirely on topic, the war has just come here.
If he is going to have full lower surgery, he will have to undergo a hysterectomy, and it’s common for trans men to include getting an oophorectomy at the same time. In that case, they are typically informed of the option of going through one or more egg retrieval cycles in order to freeze their eggs. Obviously in those instances, they cannot later bear children, but could have genetic/biological children. Also, egg retrieval cycles involve high doses of certain female hormones, and stopping T. The cycles are rough to go through, even for cis women. It’s a big deal for a trans man to choose to go through that.
If he undergoes less than full lower surgery (and some choose to have no lower surgery for various reasons) then there may be the possibility of bearing children if hormones are temporarily stopped. This is also complicated by dysphoria, of course, as many trans men (and cis men) would have profound and damaging dysphoria if they went through a pregnancy. It varies by the individual.
And there’s certainly no law outlawing absolutely all amputations, no exceptions, and if you have gangrene sucks to be you.
Well, puberty blockers are legal for cis kids with precocious puberty. As are other treatments that are part of trans affirming care, and which are also used for other purposes. So, it’s maybe more like. . . Oh hell. I can’t think of a fitting analogy. But, you know, no lifesaving amputations for bad people, and no problem getting a lifesaving amputation for a good person.
(On general topic, not a reply.) Oh, and the regret rate for trans affirming surgical procedures is not above 3%, and could be even below 1% according to some studies. The possible highest regret rate for knee replacement surgery is 30%. Overall regret rate for all surgeries is 14%. People who want trans affirming care are not doing it on a whim.
There’s your problem right there. Science is a dirty word to republicans.
For the exact same reason qubbies treat all mental health issues differently. It scares them because they don’t understand them. They don’t understand them because they don’t try to. They don’t try to because they would have to accept the science on the issue.
Explaining the qublicans is like one of Flip Wilson’s jokes, but not funny.
Of course. What perhaps frustrates me most about the whole conversation, though, is that people on the left and right (or perhaps I should say on the pro- or anti- side) both appear to have an interest in confusing the issue. Puberty blockers and letting children pick their preferred name both fall under the broad umbrella of gender-affirming care, but obviously are as different from each other as chemotherapy and “eat your vegetables”.
The antis like to confuse matters because they want to end all of it, and so they’ll point to problems with the use of puberty blockers or surgeries or whatever as an excuse to outlaw any kind of GAC, no matter how benign. But at the same time, the pros also confuse the issue because they think they need to support all of these things equally to be an ally, and if all these things are supported without caveat, then there might as well be no difference.
And then anyone who expresses the tiny bit of skepticism gets pigeonholed into one of the two categories–or more likely, both (not accusing you of doing this, BTW). It’s just pure tribalism.
That’s fair, though other studies cast even more uncertainty on the problem. For instance:
Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues in transgender youth may cause bone loss; however, the addition of GAHT restores or at least improves BMD in both transboys and transgirls.
So, maybe, instead it’s that puberty blockers cause the bone density loss, and then hormones (partially) restore it. Which may or may not contradict the other study, which doesn’t actually say that the bone loss is worse with later GAHT use. It may just be that’s all they have data for, and that it’s worse than the baseline of doing nothing.
If you read even further into the studies, it’s fairly clear that very little is understood in general. It may even be that some of it is a selection effect–transgirls may be less physically active than reference boys, possibly staying indoors more, etc. So perhaps some of the difference comes from that (and, although the study doesn’t say so, it would not be surprising if depression and other mental health issues played a part).
Overall, in both these studies and more, I think it’s clear that you can’t say with high confidence that there are negligible physical effects. That doesn’t mean their use should be totally ended, just that there should be great care in their use. And while I’m sure that’s the case most of the time, given that a doctor has to be involved at some point, it would be nice if the information online was more upfront about the level of uncertainty in the side effects.
Heres some crap that got shat out to my news feed … i cant tell if the site is anti trans or not …
I don’t think it matters to the general public, honestly. That’s something you need to know about if you are seriously considering it, for you or for your child. The only question that has come up for the public is “should we ban this practice?” I honestly don’t think the public needs detailed information on the the precise costs and benefits. There is not a public discussion when a new method of chemotherapy is proposed. Or a new form of cosmetic surgery, for that matter. There really doesn’t need to be a public debate at all. It should just be the realm of medical professionals to vet and approve particular treatments, and the realm of people directly affected to pick among what’s available.
Irrelevant for the purpose of policy. Many treatments have extremely harsh physical effects. Chemotherapy, for example, can be torturous. But under the right circumstances, it can be judged necessary for personal health.
So it is with the spectrum of gender affirming care. It is between the patient, the medical professional(s), and whomever among the patient’s family is appropriate to include. And it’s nobody else’s fucking business.
ETA ninja’d a bit by puzzlegal as I was typing. I’ll leave it as the point deserves the emphasis.
Then on that point we totally differ. How about opioids? Do you think it made no difference that the public was misinformed about the risks of Oxycontin? Should we bother having drug advertising laws at all if it makes no difference?
Like Sisyphus, it appears I am cursed to endlessly repeat that I don’t think politicians should have any input on the use of these or any drugs. My point is simply that everyone is better off if they’re maximally informed about the pros and cons of treatments. People don’t get their medical information solely from doctors.
Dude, doctors were misinformed about the risks of Oxycontin. That was the problem there.
You’re out here talking about how “both sides” get things wrong in this debate as though they’re equally bad and comparing a minor quibble about puberty blockers to the frickin opioid epidemic. Are you really confused as to why you’re not scoring a lot of points here?