Yes. All sorts of different, non-related reasons.
Well yes exactly, but that's why I said "with no physical issues requiring such intervention". Precocious puberty is obviously a physical issue.
I thought I just did - "puberty blockers being used on physically healthy cis children, with no physical issues requiring such intervention, simply for the purpose of delaying normal puberty and nothing else". What needs clarifying?
Why that is "fair"? Either in the sense of equivalency, or that it is just. (as in, justice)
It's fair in the sense of comparing equivalent situations. When you're making that claim that Treatment A is available to X, but not to Y, particularly if you're claiming this is targetted discrimination against Y, then it's important that "Treatment A" is actually the same thing right? If what you actually mean is that Treatment A is available to X, while Treatment B is not available to Y, where A and B are actually different things, happening for different reasons, with different criteria, then that isn't a "fair" comparison.
Precocious puberty is a physical condition with observable physical symptoms. It may cause distress. Many/most illnesses or conditions cause distress, that's why medicine exists and why we treat things, this isn't really that meaningful. However you want to frame it, it's a different thing.
How are you defining physical here?
No, and I disagree. In fact I tried to make it as completely general as possible.
I can only point you back to the thing I initially said in this particular exchange - "This is a flawed statement because the procedures in question aren't anything that anyone identified as being cis would ever have, by definition."
No, almost the opposite of that. I'm not claiming equivalences between categories of people. I'm saying that you shouldn't claim equivalences between different treatments for different things, just because they are based around the same pharmaceuticals, such that you then deduce that the only possible explanation for any difference between the availability of the different treatments is solely that of discrimination against one of the target groups rather than, you know, possibly because they're different things entirely.
From a medical point of view all uses of puberty blockers share the primary feature of being a chemical intervention in the medical treatment of a patient. Equally you can say that all uses of puberty blockers are different because every individual patients needs are different.
I have no idea, but Manfred has dodged this several times and you can't make someone talk.
????
I think this is just semantics. Either all uses of a drug/treatment are identical, or all individual uses are unique? Would you be arguing to this level of abstraction about chemotherapy or use of beta-blockers or anything else? Things can have different uses, but still be broadly categorised into discrete general uses which encompass many individual cases. There can even be overlap between the categories. That doesn't stop different categories still being meaningfully different and to be treated differently. Just don't claim different categories are the same thing, or deny some of the distinctions, is all I'm saying.
I haven't claimed anything about "exactly two". But I think I've defined the classes I'm talking about adequately. If you disagree you'll have to point out the ambiguity.
It is semantics, and I think it is you that is introducing irrelevant semantics.
I haven't chosen anything. Once again, a reminder that what I was replying to was the claim of "trans people being denied healthcare because they aren't cis". I don't know how such a claim could be self-evident unless cis people had access to the same treatment that trans people are denied. Given that it's a treatment specifically sought by trans people, that is categorically distinct from any other usage of the same pharmaceuticals, there are obviously other factors at play (or certainly could be at play). Boiling it down to "because they aren't cis" implies there aren't.
As far as I can see I've provided clarification on anything I've been asked to clarify. I was asked what "fair" would mean to me and, even though I'd already stated what I meant, I re-stated what I meant by that. I've clarified what I'm actually saying multiple times. Not sure what you're wanting me to define for you.
Yes it would, if the NHS was unable to provide good reasoning to deviate from established practice. They would need to show harm, or ineffectiveness of the treatment if that treatment is already long standing. It might be acceptable to be more cautious with a new treatment suspicions have fallen on.
You said:
You chose the classification criteria "physically healthy" here as what seems to matter, or you would not have brought it up. Depending on your definition this could be meaningless. Is a woman going through the menopause physically healthy? Is a functioning autistic person physically healthy? Does the answer to these questions make any difference to the treatment the patient should receive from their doctor?
I'd be interested to know of any healthcare that is available to cis people that is denied to trans people. That would clearly be undeniable discrimination if that was the case. I would want to know about it if it were happening so examples would be good.
I didn't choose that criterion, reality did. Trans people do not undergo puberty blocker treatment for any reason of physical health. They are not (as a rule) beginning precocious puberty. They are wishing to delay/postpone/avoid normal-onset puberty because it causes distress. My question was, do cis children undergo the same treatment under the same conditions? If not, there is no direct comparison of treatment available to cis children that is not available to trans children. I am sure that any trans child who showed signs of entering puberty at 8 or 9 would have access to the same treatment that any child undergoing precocious puberty would have access to.
"Any difference to the treatment" is a bit of a meaningless statement without an established baseline or some other treatment to compare it to. But should a woman who is not going through the menopause expect to have access to the same treatment that a woman going through the menopause has access to? The argument seems to be that children who are not undergoing precocious puberty should have access to the same treatments available to those undergoing precocious puberty, even though they want them for entirely different reasons and don't have the qualifying symptoms that the other group has. Well... maybe they should, but if you think so you have to come up with an argument better than just "well those other children get them".
