True all her pain and suffering would have been neatly sidestepped had she transitioned as a prepubescent boy. Would it have?
And would she had lived the same life? Finding her career, marrying her life partner, discovering the trans community as an adult, blogging her story and meeting her followers etc etc.
I’m pointing this out because of all your what ifs.
Her life would surely have been different. And a great deal less painful in many ways.
What does electrolysis refer to in this case? I’m guessing it’s not splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen.
Hair removal.
It’s been pointed out several times in this thread.
Electrolysis has two common definitions; using DC current to drive a chemical reaction, and using electricity to remove hair (presumably in a permanent way, as opposed to things like shaving or waxing).
You know a person is trans when they tell you that they are trans.
You seem to be looking for some sort of physical marker, some sort of medical test. There isn’t one. At least not yet.
There is some evidence that there are brain structures than can indicate if someone is trans or not but those can only be examined on autopsy which, I needn’t explain in detail, is not appropriate in determining care for a living human being.
So yes, the medical profession is relying on subjective and indirect evidence. It’s not the only condition where we do this - Alzheimer’s, for example, does not have a direct, pre-autopsy test. We diagnose it based, again, on indirect evidence. Yet few to no people question the legitimacy of Alzheimer’s dementia.
That is why there is a need for years long counseling and medical care, to determine whether someone is trans or has some other condition, and what would be the appropriate treatment for that particular individual.
You can’t swab for it like you can COVID-19.
I think it more likely that “persisters”, being trans, have an extremely difficult time getting and keeping employment due to on-going bias against trans people in our society.
It’s not poverty causing trans people to exist, or causing gender dysphoria - it’s being trans and thus ostracized by so many that is keeping these people poor.
How are you determining that parents are “too quick” to accept that their children are not regular cis children?
I can’t speak for Australia, but I do have internet contact with quite a few trans and non-binary people in Britain. There’s been a turn in the government over there with many anti-trans measures being passed (among other things, a recent proposal would essentially make it impossible for trans people to use toilets in any sort of public building, ever. Just one example) and a reluctance to use puberty-blockers I lump in with the other anti-trans measures being promoted over there.
Context is important.
Denying treatment to trans children is like saying we won’t correct someone’s cleft palate until they’re an adult. It is possible to function with a cleft palate, but it’s not at all fun and denial of this treatment to a person is seen as cruelty. Likewise, denying appropriate, professional treatment to a child experiencing any sort of on-going distress would also be cruel.
I prefer to leave such determinations and decisions in the hands of actual professionals.
We need a way to support them without denying treatments when denial might have negative consequences for them down the road. Some who were denied puberty blockers and had an unregulated puberty now feel they are living a nightmare.
See how that also looks awful?
Again - let’s leave this to the professionals and stop pressuring people to, as someone else said, choose a box and label to stick with all their life. And recognize that not every outcome of a treatment will be perfect.
If it’s strong enough to help you it’s also strong enough to hurt you.
And you’re ignoring the potential long-term consequences of NOT providing even imperfect treatment.
I agree that society is stupid and hypocritical on many issues. You can show a 6 year old murder and violence on TV, but not two people making love. Shows you what society really values, I suppose.
But you have a major flaw in your statement - the idea that it is the child alone making such decisions. No child is. There is no way in this USofA that ANY under-age child can walk into a doctor’s office and ordered up gender therapy. At a minimum, there has to be buy-in from the parent(s)/legal guardian(s).
You do that by referring them to people who specialize in treating people with gender issues. The current standard of care developed over decades allows for puberty blockers for minors. Not surgery. Not cross-sex hormones.
And, one more time - the study you cited is just one study and an outlier compared to all other published studies I could find on line. There are people who experience some form of gender discomfort growing up who, upon adulthood, resolve the issues to their satisfaction and continue to identify as they were assigned at birth. Those are not trans people.
Trans people, on the other hand, can’t be forced to be cis people no matter what you do to them. At “best” you have someone playing a role they find uncomfortable and distasteful. Rather like forcing a left-handed kid to only use their right hand does not make them a right-hander. It makes them a left-hander forced to conform in a manner that, at best, is uncomfortable. They continue to have the brain structure of someone left-handed, even if they’re mostly using their right hand.
We have almost NO tests that are 99.9999% accurate in medicine. You’re essentially asking for the impossible.
What you’re asking for is like saying we shouldn’t treat childhood leukemia until the patient is 18.
“Trans gender/gender dysphoria” doesn’t start at age 18. It starts a lot earlier, in childhood, when the child realizes they don’t conform to everyone else’s expectations. So maybe it’s more like scoliosis - treatment should start when it’s first noted the child’s back isn’t developing normally because waiting requires greater and greater interventions, and may even result in a situation that can’t be truly fixed. Treatment for any form of gender dysphoria should start as soon as it is noted, not delayed for years and years just because some people find it “icky”.
Puberty blockers only need to be given until the child is old enough to consent to other medical treatment. In the US that is 18. Going through puberty at 18 is a bit later than average but still within the range considered “normal”.
Most of the long-term effects you note are due NOT to puberty blockers - removing them simply re-starts puberty where it left off - but going directly from puberty-blockers to cross-sex hormones and/or surgery, thereby bypassing the puberty that would have otherwise happened.
Anecdote is not evidence.
Also:
I think it’s moving too slow.
What does that have to do with trans issues?
Um… how many would “make sense” to you? On what do you base that opinion?
Allowing people to live as they choose - you know, freedom - is not “driving the trans bus”.
In general, anyone saying “MSM” makes me concerned they are not, actually, dealing with facts.
We are discussing gender dysphoria and trans issues. Not what Hunter Biden may or may not have done. Unless he’s trans none of that is relevant.
@Broomstick, now that magellan has finally been gone from this thread for several days, is there a reason you’re so determined to bring them back?
Regarding the Idaho school bathroom case, why isn’t there a doctor’s order? That is, why didn’t the plaintiff include a factual allegation that a professional treatment plan for her gender dysphoria includes using the girls’ bathroom facilities? Just from a perspective of pure legal strategy. The burden is on the party who claims there’s a medical consensus, whereas if you have doctor’s orders, the burden shifts to the state to prove the treatment (i.e. using a girl’s restroom) is unreasonable.
It is indicated that a therapist was involved, but not that he or she thinks social transitioning is a necessary treatment. Emphasis mine,
“After discussions between Rebecca, Rebecca’s therapist, and Rebecca’s parents,
the family decided to give Rebecca the opportunity to “be herself” for spring break in 2021,
when Rebecca was not attending school, and to express her gender in the way that felt most
comfortable to her.”
Compare,
Living in a manner consistent with her gender identity, including having access to the girls’ restroom, is an important aspect of the treatment for Rebecca’s gender dysphoria.
Important, says who? The argument is that access to the girls’ bathroom is necessary treatment for this particular girl’s gender dysphoria. If it’s the family saying it’s necessary based on general medical consensus, that’s not going to be nearly as strong as the plaintiff’s designated mental health professional saying it’s necessary in this specific case.
The state can generally compel student behavior on school premises in order to maintain an orderly environment. I don’t think they don’t have to demonstrate that a particular approach is evidence based.
I’m thinking of school uniforms. Imagine a real puritan policy where students can’t wear open-toed shoes. Imagine one student hurts her foot pretty bad, and has urgent care records to prove it. Now she finds close-toed shoes extremely discomforting but the school won’t make an exception. I think they can do that, it sucks, but the school’s within its rights. If the doctor says she shouldn’t wear open-toed shoes any more, however, that’s a whole different ballgame. If the school can’t accommodate that, if there’s attested medical necessity and state law prevents the school from providing accommodations, there’s a strong Title IX case to be had.
The case is Roe v. Critchfield, 1:23-cv-00315-DCN (D. Idaho, 2023).
~Max
That makes a lot of sense, I’m surprised I didn’t think of it myself. It also fits the way the data distribution looks in that it basically appears like there is a ceiling to the Socio-economic success of the persisters.
???
The Idaho law in question does not make an exception for trans children who get doctor’s notes. So the first question, does Rebecca Roe have standing to sue, does not hinge on any doctor’s note.
The answer to the second question, “when will medical experts weigh in on the specifics of this case,” is “at the trial.” Or at the very least, “at the hearing scheduled for Sept 13th.”
I wasn’t talking about standing to sue, I skipped to the merits. I skipped a lot of steps (I’m not trying to persuade). At this point my personal opinion on the case turns on whether or not access to the girls’ bathroom is necessary to treat Ms. Roe’s gender dysphoria. I have in mind a theory that the law is purposefully discriminatory and disparately impacts similarly situated students’ mental health.
Her & her family’s opinion has weight but it’s not nearly as persuasive to me as a mental health professional’s. So far as I can tell plaintiffs do not allege that a mental health professional found access to the bathroom to be necessary for this particular girl’s mental health treatment. Would they still be allowed to introduce evidence of that fact at trial without first pleading it and allowing the government the chance to respond?
~Max
It’s been brought up, but without, as best I can tell, much in the way of evidence. So far, I’ve seen little in the way of any data on what happens when the blockers are ended. And of course the data that does exist is hard to disentangle from hormone use.
There is no FDA approval for their use in this application. Their use in the US and the UK is off-label. That’s not inherently bad–lots of drugs are used off-label. But it means that actual data outside the narrow original approval is thin on the ground.
I find it a fairly extraordinary claim that the blockers act as a perfect pause button. The body is undergoing tremendous changes outside of puberty; it’s unreasonable to assume that puberty can resume perfectly from any starting point. There must be some upper age limit where it no longer works; what is it?
From what I’ve seen, the gatekeeping mechanisms currently in place are working ok–there isn’t a huge level of regret for those who take puberty blockers (the rest got filtered out earlier in the process). That’s great–it means the system is working as designed. Let’s not make it worse by making unsupported claims.
You think this is a murky issue? That such a student might be poorly impacted by being prohibited from entering one of the few gender-specific areas?
Sorry - didn’t realize just how behind I was in this thread. I actually usually read posts in order when replying and didn’t realize I was a couple hundred of them behind the most recent. I’ll take that into account going forward.
As a parent of multiple school-aged children, let me explain how this works with school administrations (I’m assuming you have not experienced this personally).
Any multi-story school is going to have an elevator for ADA compliance, operated with a key to prevent shenanigans. If a student breaks a leg and comes into the school with a cast, the school is not going to ask for a doctor’s note to confirm what they can see with their own eyes. No doctor is going to proscribe “less stair-taking”, and schools are not going to waste time verifying a ton of information. The school is simply going to hand the student a key to the elevator as an accommodation for a (temporary) disability.
One of my children has emotional and behavioral issues and is on an IEP. The IEP is, essentially, a collection of accommodations agreed upon by the school administration, teachers, and parents. Things like extra time taking tests, alternative assignments, etc. No doctor has ever proscribed for my child “extra time taking tests.” Yes, we have given the school his medical history which includes official diagnoses. And yes, therapists have made recommendations for accommodations. But even before we had that documentation to provide, the school was already making several accommodations based on what they saw before them.
As it happens, I also have a transgender child. The school has accommodated them by allowing them to use the bathroom of their choice. We did not have to give the school any sort of official diagnosis (although we do have one), nor did we have to get a doctor’s order prescribing use of an alternative restroom. We simply talked to the school and agreed on the accommodation.
I haven’t dug into this lawsuit but an absolutely normal chain of events here would be 1) the student comes out as trans, 2) the school allows the student to use the bathroom of their choice, and then 3) the Idaho legislature passes a law blocking the school’s ability to make that decision. A previously granted accommodation for the student has now been taken away, and the student is suing as a result.
Yes, this trial will probably spend a lot of time on the medical merits of social acceptance for treating gender dysphoria, but the way schools, parents, and doctors handle these sorts of things is much less formal than you’re describing.
I agree that there probably is an upper limit, but unless it’s past 18 it’s a moot point because at that point the person can make their own medical decisions and, presuming prior years of counseling/treatment, would have a good idea of whether they want to medically transition or to resume the puberty that was halted.
Apparently these days not (naturally) starting puberty until 14 or 15 is getting into “delayed” but the information I"ve found indicates that this does not automatically mean something is wrong and some people just simply start late. Note that is the start of puberty - again, my information is that puberty blockers aren’t normally started until Tanner stage 2, which is slightly after the first signs of puberty.
For all the hyperventilation about delaying puberty, early puberty is actually more medically significant. Among other things, it places the child at higher risk of some cancers later in life, and possible stunted growth. Not to mention psychological issues if an early maturing child becomes a target of sexual interest due to their adult appearance, or is expected to act like an adult when they’re actually twelve. Which is why puberty blockers are used in people who are not at all trans but rather going through an early puberty of the sort they want to eventually go through, just not right now.
So, in addition to the potential positives of treating gender dysphoria, puberty blockers also reduce the risk of hormone-influenced cancers decades later, and make certain types of appearance-based social problems less likely. But it’s funny how those potential benefits are never mentioned.
And 18 isn’t outside the natural range. I have a friend who is a straight cis man in his 70s who didn’t start puberty until he was 18. He took some flack in high school for looking like a child, but not a lot, and it hasn’t caused him any troubles since.