Children and Puberty Blockers, Hormone Therapy, and Gender Reassignment Surgery

It also flattens all detrans into „realized they weren’t trans,“ which is simply not the case. The vast majority who end up detransitioning (itself a small minority of the trans community) do so at least in some part because of an external pressure - because of social rejection from friends and family, or because of violence and harassment on the street, or because of the rampant housing and hiring discrimination directed against trans people, or because of the enormous costs and bureaucratic burdens associated with medical and legal transitioning, and many trans people who detransition will resume transitioning later in life.

This bears repeating and highlighting, and phrasing in the clearest way possible: the vast majority of detransitioners are still trans people - they're just trans people who have decided transition is not something they can afford at their current point in time.

This is where the shorthand "detrans" and "trans" can do a lot of manipulative obfuscating legworks by making it sounds like the "trans" in both words is the same thing, and that "detrans people" have rejected therefore being trans ; it's not. Trans in detrans refer to the process and act of transition ; trans in "trans person" refers to the state of not being the gender you're assigned at birth. Transition is only *one* way of living as a transgender person ; not a condition or necessity of it. One can be trans and never transition, delay transitioning, partially transition, begin transitioning, detransition, and retransition (or not) later, or fully transition - or a myriad other way.
 
Last edited:
Certainly. I think my overarching point is we don't have the data, and the data we do have suggests a very mixed, confusing picture at present. As such, precaution is advised.

Certainly. My point here was that the truth was likely somewhere in between 0.005% and 1%. Barriers to entry are one factor (also lack of truly effective treatment holds many back, I'm sure). On the other hand, you have self-reported studies with unclear terminology being applied to get to 1%+ territory. I don't know that barriers alone are going to explain a ~500:1 discrepancy here.

Are the two conditions actually the same? Children work through sexual preference differences as they go through puberty. Lots of aspects of their personalities change over that ~10 year period. We have self-reporting studies showing a sharp divide between younger and older generations in how they identify. While much of that may be cultural differences, there may be underlying psychology as well. Do we know?

But the question seems to boil down to "how many children who are *really* transgender are we willing to let suffer potentially suicidal levels of anguish and depression in order to avoid an unknown but by current accounts relatively minimal health risk to 'confused' cis children with temporary use of puberty blockers", do I have that approximately right?
I am still waiting to see how much these therapies actually reduce suicide rates. It's been a point of contention here, and I've yet to see compelling evidence to show there's major long-term reductions. My point also is that this goes both ways, and expanding HRT/etc programs beyond their current scope (of 0.01% or so) may have equally suicidal outcomes for the likely much larger marginally trans community that ages and has to deal with detrans dysphoria later on.
I do not consider your hand-waving of detrans issues to be appropriate. Their anguish is no less severe than the "in the wrong body" issues suffered by trans people. Even with the current ~0.01% selectivity we have, we see a significant minority of detrans popping up.
Just because you personally are 100% trans does not mean everyone who self-identifies is as well. How many are full-trans, how many are just genderqueer or fluid, how many will shift from trans to another non-trans or quasi-trans identity as they age?

I'm also still waiting for actual hard science showing PBs are truly "just temporary" / "just a pill bro" in otherwise healthy adolescents, as well as HRTs longitudinally being just peachy. I have extreme skepticism that you can totally overhaul the endocrine system for life without issue, given how many issues people have from minor endocrine dysfunction (and it's got that whole cutting edge medicine thing going on too), but it takes decades to collect data on that, and we have such vanishingly small pre-current HRT test subjects to collect on.

There should be a real concern for the possibility of "false positives" -- giving a child the wrong hormones is obviously very harmful and bad. The mirror of this though is that denying blockers and HRT to a trans kid is the same as giving them the wrong hormones, something we just said was harmful and bad. To emphasize, the harm of giving a cis kid HRT is the exact same harm as denying a trans kid HRT.
 
The hysteria surrounding trans topics by a group of non trans people who are absolutely obsessed with both our existence, our bodies and our bodily functions, our participation in various parts of society and our desire to not hide ourselves is frankly disgusting.

You see it from terfs obsessed with making life harder for trans people, from those that claim they're "just asking questions" and using the fact society and science has ignored us as a justification to stymie any progress, from the men who simultaneously hate trans women but also love to sexualize us and use us when convenient, from the supposed libertarians who claim to be pro freedom but fail at the first hurdle of bodily autonomy, to the religious right who refuse to move on from their bigoted rhetoric

To be honest, you see it in this thread and in this forum as a whole, this is not exactly a trans friendly place.
 
The continuous assault against the existence of trans people and their ability to live and the usual freedom loving libertarians are just absolutely silent, they're nowhere to be seen
 
Everyone is mostly busy crapping themselves remembering what the fear of the 80s felt like.

Global crisis is not good for libertarianism. Not necessarily going to be replaced with anything kinder, though. Any updates on the Texas situation regarding investigations of abuse into parents of trans teens? Cuz that is some anti libertarian genuine horseexplative right there.
 
Last edited:

The White House has condemned Texas' actions.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/hhs-...kids-hhs-will-take-immediate-action-if-needed
“This is government overreach at its worst,” Biden said in a statement. “Like so many anti-transgender attacks proliferating in states across the country, the Governor’s actions callously threaten to harm children and their families just to score political points.

“These actions are terrifying many families in Texas and beyond,” he added. “And they must stop.”
 
I'm only half paying attention, but I think a woman on the radio just said that gender-affirming care for trans kids reduces suicide attempts by 70%.
 
Would ANY of the CFC trans folk be included in 2010 data?

I'm only half paying attention, but I think a woman on the radio just said that gender-affirming care for trans kids reduces suicide attempts by 70%.

https://www.psychiatryadvisor.com/h...benefits-of-gender-affirming-hormone-therapy/

Eligible respondents were aged 13 to 24 years
...
In regression models, receipt of GAHT was associated with significantly lower odds of depression (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.73; 95% CI, 0.61-0.88; P <.001) compared to no receipt of GAHT. GAHT was also associated with lower odds of seriously considering suicide (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.62-0.88; P <.001), though not with lower odds of suicide attempt (P =.16). When the study sample was restricted to youths aged 13 to 17 years, GAHT significantly lowered the risk for depression (OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.43-0.86; P <.01) and suicide attempt (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.40-0.97; P =.04), though not suicide ideation.

I've had zero practical experience with Odds Ratios and no intuitions. They're only something I've read about, instead of being a statistic some Principle is yelling at me to analyse a different way before publication and I've had to worry about every time I compile data or read as background to an experiment.

The survivorship bias on the two age cohort on suicide attempt is going to be extreme. Not just 'survival' but even showing up to future surveys.

I don't think that GAHT was defined in the survey. And, I don't know if they controlled for priming, by asking one question before another. With 11,914 respondents (and the simple fact that *I* know about the effect, despite never doing any psychology research) makes me not really worry about it. It's both obvious and incredibly easy with those numbers. The Journal itself has an impact factor above 3.5, which means nothing to me, but will mean something to someone who works in the field.

Funding Sources
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

This is the easiest aspect of this for anyone here to change.
 
Last edited:
So, let me create a compromise. First off, it's a 'gentle' prison that they get sent to. And it's only the guardian that gets sent if there's a conviction (allow the doctors to focus on what they think is best and let the moral burden sit on the guardian). But the sentencing is delayed until the patient legally becomes an adult.

And then, at 18, the patient gets to decide if the guardian or one of these legislators serves out the remainder of the sentence.

Spoiler wow :
 
Idaho's house just passed HB 675. It passed by a vote of 55-13. It would make providing gender affirming care to trans teens a felony with a life sentence.. Worse... it makes leaving the state with your trans teen to move elsewhere and provide them with care a felony as well. https://t.co/k3jX086h9a
https://twitter.com/ErinInTheMorn/status/1501314842992467975

How is that even remotely enforceable? It's not like you can easily prove the reason why somebody moved, and what, they're saying not only is x illegal here, if you move (permanently or temporarily) to do x where it's legal, that's still illegal?

There's certainly some level of precedence for things like laws against sex tourism where it's "if you do x in another country it's still illegal and if you come back we're prosecuting you" but is there any other kind of law where it's "if you do x elsewhere within the US, regardless of the laws where you did it and what the feds say about it, we're prosecuting you" ?
 
Gonna keep saying it, the people, on this very forum, in this very thread who proport to care about freedom and being outwardly libertarian being VERY quiet very silent about these bills that would in effect ban being trans and criminalize it, are utter cowards

That's what you are
 
How is that even remotely enforceable? It's not like you can easily prove the reason why somebody moved, and what, they're saying not only is x illegal here, if you move (permanently or temporarily) to do x where it's legal, that's still illegal?

There's certainly some level of precedence for things like laws against sex tourism where it's "if you do x in another country it's still illegal and if you come back we're prosecuting you" but is there any other kind of law where it's "if you do x elsewhere within the US, regardless of the laws where you did it and what the feds say about it, we're prosecuting you" ?
It's possible they've deliberately crafted the law with the aim of creating a Supreme Court case, which they think they can win now. But I don't think that part of the bill is aimed primarily at people who move away, I think it's aimed at people who simply drive across state lines. By way of example, there's a Republican politician in Missouri who's proposing that residents be able to file lawsuits against other residents who circumvent that state's abortion restrictions by driving a woman to Illinois for her healthcare. I think it's also likely that the people who wrote this bill are religious authoritarians who don't believe in things like democracy and just, sensible laws, but rather want everyone else to abide by their specific interpretation of the Laws of God. If they ever read The Handmaid's Tale - they won't, but if they did - they would think it was a handbook.
 
I would be shocked if the Supreme Court rules against this. The law is fake but its like a thousand more times fake with the current bench.
 
I would be shocked if the Supreme Court rules against this. The law is fake but its like a thousand more times fake with the current bench.
Clearly a violation of the 8th amendment against cruel and unusual punishment.

The Supreme Court should have no problem striking it down 9-0 if it makes it to law somehow.

Then again, 3 strike laws were invented to grind the 8th amendment into dust. :hmm:

Governments need to stop criminalizing things that are not crimes at all and just stay out of it.
 
I doubt it goes 9-0, but if you can get them to take it up, guessing they'll still strike a state law that purports to enforce state will outside of Idaho.

Then they'll have only ruled on that and nothing more.
 
Gonna keep saying it, the people, on this very forum, in this very thread who proport to care about freedom and being outwardly libertarian being VERY quiet very silent about these bills that would in effect ban being trans and criminalize it, are utter cowards

That's what you are

I would add that I believe the people who, holding public office, vote for & sign these bills, ought to be liable to prosecution for civil rights violation and crimes against humanity.

I doubt it goes 9-0, but if you can get them to take it up, guessing they'll still strike a state law that purports to enforce state will outside of Idaho.

Then they'll have only ruled on that and nothing more.


That'd be my guess too.
 
Top Bottom