UK High Court finally acts to block unsupervised use puberty blockers on children

[NinjaCow64]

This is a much-needed ruling, given the explosive growth of the use of this "treatment" in recent years. As we know from the past history of interventions justified with "psychiatry" or "psychology", these things tend to go through fads and then recess - leaving plenty of damaged test subjects of the first impact of the fad behind to cope with their resultant personal problems.

Are you a psychiatrist, psychologist or some sort of medical expert Inno? I would be surprised considering you put quotes over “treatment”, “psychiatry” and “psychology”.

I known, of course, that there are plenty of PC brigades that would like to burn people at the stake for saying "not so fast" on these things.

You known? I am sorry I do not understand what you mean. What sorts of things? Like the decriminalisation of sodomy? Do you known that that was too fast?

Which is why a court ruling on it was necessary: civil public discussion was drowned out under threats and intimidation. No interest in discussing the actual issue, only in silencing critics. An attitude which I'm sure this thread will only produce more evidence of..

Yes I agree, transpeople have been threatened, intimidated and belittled and this thread has already produced lots of examples of the belittling of trans people. I’m not sure how this court case relates to the free expression, other than limiting it. Could you elaborate?

Another piece on the history of some of the people who fought for this ruling says something that I personally know to be truth and that has been and is currently a reason why many gay men are moving way from the "LTBT charities" and regarding the current directions of several of them as enemies:

Oh dear, it looks like that article is behind a paywall. I’ll have to hope that your quotation is accurate!

Speaking of anecdotes I know of several gay men who are raging transphobes who have left LGBT charities (was LTBT a typo?) and consider innocent charitable organisations as “enemies” because they are all around terrible people. I guess we shall have to consider both of our anecdotes in future discussions.

As far as I can tell from the article there were two concrete complaints - a detransitioning woman who is upset about the side effects of a transition they wish they had not undergone and a “concerned mother” of a fifteen year-old on a waiting list. The puberty blockers were not the cause of Miss Bell’s regrets - why is she suing the clinic that gave her puberty blockers as opposed to the people who gave her surgery? Seems suspect to me. Also I don’t see how someone who is on a waiting list for hormone blockers is an authority on the needs to make hormone blockers hard to access. Everything else in the article is hinges on a woman who withdrew from the court case and hearsay.

The evidence shows that the vast majority of children who take puberty blockers move on to take cross-sex hormones.

Everyone who drinks water dies. Lets ban drinking of water! Mountain Dew is a far superior substitute.

To be perfectly clear: I've witnesses people being pressuring into "assuming themselves as trans" who were very clearly merely homossexual.

What’s a homossexual and how does one tell that a person is one as opposed to being trans?

It was bad enough when a "gay lifestyle" was pushed on young and impressionable people for the sake of their commercial exploitation more than anything else: the associations have always been sponsored by the night clubs, bars, etc.. but what the hell that was life and young people had to meet it at that point in life anyway. Everything is commercialized, so what if this group is specifically exploited I guess? One among others. Some became casualties to drugs, debts, suicide or AIDS that wouldn't if they hadn't been pushed head first into "affirmation" in an environment that can be rather toxic, but it was the subculture we had. Most survived. I could deal with that and still help people.

Are you saying that the “gay lifestyle” causes AIDS? Wow.

Then came the transgender fashion... what was a very specific medial problem affecting a small number of people

Homosexuality used to be considered a “very specific medial problem affecting a small number of people”.

now became a fad pushed by associations and "charities", some of witch were the old gay associations whose purpose after the last big battles (marriage and adoption) had become void. They were seriously in risk of being disbanded, having no more donations and volunteers. Law of institutions: the people living off them won't disband because the work is done, they'll find some other cause if they can. When leaders live off the association's funds... very common anywhere. Again, I've lived this...

SSM and adoption are issues that are still hotly contented (adoption more than SSM admittedly). I think this paragraph points to an “eff you got mine” mentality. Do you really think that now that affluent gay people have all their rights that the struggle is “over”?

This new fashion was salvation: it should be applicable to anyone who could be persuaded that therein lie the solution to their feelings or maladjustment - the more the people the greater the influence and the new funding. Feelings that are entirely normal to be felt by teenagers are being exploited - this is no different than the way religion exploits sex to create guilt and the need to atone for it ritually. So now gender is supposed to be a "choice" and on that choice people should act immediately when they feel maladjusted, when they are at their most vulnerable, children and teenagers, and if necessary isolated from their usual support groups other than that provided by these associations and allies: the procedures should be done in secrecy on the idea that the child or teenager alone can "consent". Obviously advised by the helpful association/trust/medical staff... This was the idea, that this curt order put a stake through at least in the UK.

This is a complete distortion of reality. It is also exactly what homophobes allege about gay men.

This was not righting some wrong. This was not saving people from oppression. This, the way it was (is) being done, was another exploitation. Checks and balances on the advice institutionally given, a delay to consider maturely, can only be a good thing.

I have not seen compelling evidence why hormone blockers need to be treated like this. Teenagers are able to get access to anti-acne medication whose side effects include suicide without having to talk to a judge in both my country and (I believe) the UK. Hormone blockers have no such link to suicidal ideation. For this reason I haven’t seen any rationale for this court ruling outside of blatant transphobia.

 

[innonimatu]

That was one of the major issue the Atlantic article looked into, and there isn't any clear cut process. On one hand, it should be a medical issue handled by medical professionals. On the other, especially with minors, there should be some sort of brakes/pushback, but that has a long history of doubting that people are actually trans or disregarding their concerns. It is a messy, complicated issue that has no good answers.

Which, of course, is completely separate from your frankly strange assertions that there is some sort of shadow cabal trying to turn people gay/trans in order to further corporate interests.

Wait, I didn't intend to make such a claim. I'm perennially disgusted at the commercialization of everything and let it through here, but see no cabal in it. It's just one more risk to be managed. Specifically I fear both the profit motive for pushing unnecessary medical interventions, and institutional motive also (as in, we do x as an institutional and we must do more x so we can grow/continue to exist). This is not a conspiracy, it's a kind (two kinds) of pervasive bias.
In fact in the UK's case only the second one should be at play, given that the NHS is public.

 

[Ajidica]

Wait, I didn't intend to make such a claim. I'm perennially disgusted at the commercialization of everything and let it through here, but see no cabal in it. It's just one more risk to be managed. Specifically I fear both the profit motive for pushing unnecessary medical interventions, and institutional motive also (as in, we do x as an institutional and we must do more x so we can grow/continue to exist). This is not a conspiracy, it's a kind (two kinds) of pervasive bias.

Well, secret cabal trying to turn your kids gay/trans in order to enrich the capitalists was certainly the vibe I was getting from it.
Might want to be a bit more careful in how you present your thoughts on this area. While I have a better idea where you are coming from, it is very easy to read what you are saying as "people are being brainwashed into thinking they are trans because of professional activists and capitalists seeking a new source of revenue", which is hella offensive.

 

[El_Machinae]

I think this is a different problem than allowing for puberty blockers. If you have a fundamental mistrust in the healthcare institutions of your country, then it's not a question of whether or not puberty blockers should be allowed, but instead a question of how you can force the healthcare system to become trustworthy again.

I have no doubt that puberty blockers are a valuable tool in the toolkit. But yeah, we need good medical practice around their use, and (more importantly) progress in the quality of that practice. "Forcing" that progress requires, well, knowing where the weakness are. At least as step one

 

[NinjaCow64]

At least they never helped me talk myself into life-altering decisions.

This is what frustrates me about the conversation - puberty blockers are largely reversible. Puberty is not. The court alleges that puberty blockers cause people to want to transition which is a complete confusion of cause and effect.

 

[Takhisis]

I'm not going to subsrcibe to this thread, but calling transgenderism a fashion is a /thread moment for me at least. Even without the quoting the Torygraph.

 

[innonimatu]

I have not seen compelling evidence why hormone blockers need to be treated like this. Teenagers are able to get access to anti-acne medication whose side effects include suicide without having to talk to a judge in both my country and (I believe) the UK. Hormone blockers have no such link to suicidal ideation. For this reason I haven’t seen any rationale for this court ruling outside of blatant transphobia.

We better bracked the whole past experience of gay rights comparisons and certain present conflicts over LGBT things (of which I suspect we could talk at length...) as not really relevant to the issue at hand. I see certain useful parallels in it but also it risks driving this completely off-topic. I shouldn't have brought it up.

The specific reason for considering hormone blockers as an issue requiring more oversight with minors was that it is the beginning of a medial intervention path that seldom is interrupted once started without going also to hormone treatments and surgery. I won't know how often that is the case in the UK, the US or other countries.

This is what frustrates me about the conversation - puberty blockers are largely reversible. Puberty is not. The court alleges that puberty blockers cause people to want to transition which is a complete confusion of cause and effect.

How long can hormone blockers, alone, be given safely and reversibly? If a teenager who is on them does change his/her mind, say by the standard 18 yo age, is it possible to "catch up" without side effects? And would it be reasonable to stick to that only until that age? Or is the argument that once started down that path there will be pressures (psychological? medical?) to move along it one that matches current experience?

 

[NinjaCow64]

While I have a better idea where you are coming from, it is very easy to read what you are saying as "people are being brainwashed into thinking they are trans because of professional activists and capitalists seeking a new source of revenue", which is hella offensive.

I think you are being way too generous. In the opening post he alleges that evil capitalists pushed people into the “gay lifestyle” (which causes AIDS) to make money. Its pretty clear to me what he thinks.

 

[Ajidica]

This is what frustrates me about the conversation - puberty blockers are largely reversible. Puberty is not. The court alleges that puberty blockers cause people to want to transition which is a complete confusion of cause and effect.

My understanding on puberty blockers, for people who choose in the end to not transition, is it basically is a big question mark as to what long term effects they have; ranging from nothing, to hormonal issues, to sterility.
Plus, going through puberty is a major part in understanding who you are and gender/sexual dynamics.
As an example, anecdotally, the Atlantic article interviewed a girl who as a teenager thought she was transgender. If I'm remembering the interview right, she ultimately chose not to transition after going through puberty and developing a better understanding of how someone can be a woman, and that for her, her apparent dysmorphia was not thinking she was a man, but not knowing there were other ways to "be a woman".

 

[El_Machinae]

This is what frustrates me about the conversation - puberty blockers are largely reversible. Puberty is not.

Yeah, I'm sold on this. Plus the very obvious point that "not choosing is the same as choosing". It's why I presented my matrix upthread. We would justify their use based on pain avoided.

The court alleges that puberty blockers cause people to want to transition which is a complete confusion of cause and effect.

I'm not saying anything about the court case, because there's no way I can know the details. "Judge rules that doctors don't have sufficient regulation" isn't a surprising headline, and I'd not know whether it's a good ruling or not.

BUT, I wouldn't call it a 'complete confusion', because of the sunk-cost fallacy. It's a well-known psychological effect. So, I can totally see "having taken the drug" will "cause wanting to continue the transition". But, lol, I'd never expect a court to distinguish that.

 

[innonimatu]

I think you are being way too generous. In the opening post he alleges that evil capitalists pushed people into the “gay lifestyle” (which causes AIDS) to make money. Its pretty clear to me what he thinks.

Then I was indeed excessively carelessly in what I wrote, and know that people new here wouldn't recall certain past discussions. Having lived through the end of the gay community out of need (AIDS... getting treatments and convincing people into using condoms was such a big part of it - it was only a half victory, the porn producers won the other half ) into the pure commercialization of it I'm rather disgusted by how it turned out. As I said please bracked that, it's not relevant for the case here.

 

[Zardnaar]

I'm not going to subsrcibe to this thread, but calling transgenderism a fashion is a /thread moment for me at least. Even without the quoting the Torygraph.

Yeah that's odd to me. People are wired the way they're wired is my theory/beliefs.

The line will get drawn somewhere and it's never going to be perfect. We have universal healthcare but it's not get whatever you want when you want it wherever you are.

It's more treat the most people you can with the resources available often even where you live.

 

[NinjaCow64]

The specific reason for considering hormone blockers as an issue requiring more oversight with minors was that it is the beginning of a medial intervention path that seldom is interrupted once started without going also to hormone treatments and surgery. I won't know how often that is the case in the UK, the US or other countries.

This can easily be explained by the fact that detransitioners are very rare and the fact that previous safeguards were sufficient (overzealous, perhaps) and that the overwhelming majority of children on hormone blockers are actually trans.

Then I was indeed excessively carelessly in what I wrote, and know that people new here wouldn't recall certain past discussions. Having lived through the end of the gay community out of need (AIDS... getting treatments and convincing people into using condoms was such a big part of it - it was only a half victory, the porn producers won the other half ) into the pure commercialization of it I'm rather disgusted by how it turned out. As I said please bracked that, it's not relevant for the case here.

Well here’s the thing - in every thread on OT where you post about trans people you say something “excessively careless”. Either you are repeatedly putting your foot in your mouth or you believe the very not nice things that you are posting. But this time you posted something “excessively careless” about a group that we are both a member of.

I would be happy to drop this element of the conversation if one of two things happen 1) you edit out all “excessively careless” comments in your opening post and all other posts in this thread and apologise, in this thread, to every person posting in this thread (especially the LGBT posters) or 2) a moderator tells me that the conversation is out of the scope of this thread (in which case I will start a new thread discussing this issue). If one of these two things do not happen then I expect to talk about in great detail about how I, a bisexual man, can avoid being pushed into the “gay lifestyle” (which causes AIDS) by pornographers and analyse your posts in this thread for helpful tips.

 

[NinjaCow64]

The specific reason for considering hormone blockers as an issue requiring more oversight with minors was that it is the beginning of a medial intervention path that seldom is interrupted once started without going also to hormone treatments and surgery. I won't know how often that is the case in the UK, the US or other countries.

Please refer to:

I have not seen compelling evidence why hormone blockers need to be treated like this. Teenagers are able to get access to anti-acne medication whose side effects include suicide without having to talk to a judge in both my country and (I believe) the UK. Hormone blockers have no such link to suicidal ideation. For this reason I haven’t seen any rationale for this court ruling outside of blatant transphobia.

How long can hormone blockers, alone, be given safely and reversibly? If a teenager who is on them does change his/her mind, say by the standard 18 yo age, is it possible to "catch up" without side effects? And would it be reasonable to stick to that only until that age? Or is the argument that once started down that path there will be pressures (psychological? medical?) to move along it one that matches current experience?

I have conflated two different types of treatment - puberty blockers and HRT. Everything I have read says that puberty blockers are largely reversible if one changes their mind. Most people who are on puberty blockers want to transition (which often involves HRT) because most people who are on puberty blockers are trans. I don’t understand why people find this difficult to understand.

 

[Crezth]

Anyone else getting major "Drop the T, and G should be before L! " vibes from this thread?

 

[cardgame]

But ignoring doctors' advice to the detriment of trans people isn't transphobic! /s

 

[Ajidica]

I would be happy to drop this element of the conversation if one of two things happen 1) you edit out all “excessively careless” comments in your opening post and all other posts in this thread and apologise, in this thread, to every person posting in this thread (especially the LGBT posters) or 2) a moderator tells me that the conversation is out of the scope of this thread (in which case I will start a new thread discussing this issue). If one of these two things do not happen then I expect to talk about in great detail about how I, a bisexual man, can avoid being pushed into the “gay lifestyle” (which causes AIDS) by pornographers and analyse your posts in this thread for helpful tips.

I mean, he said he he was careless in what he wrote, and isn't really the focus of this thread.
I, for one, don't need an apology from inno.

Please refer to:

I have conflated two different types of treatment - puberty blockers and HRT. Everything I have read says that puberty blockers are largely reversible if one changes their mind. Most people who are on puberty blockers want to transition (which often involves HRT) because most people who are on puberty blockers are trans. I don’t understand why people find this difficult to understand.

In biologic terms, there is a lot we don't know about puberty blockers long term effects on people who do not undergo HRT.
There is also the mental aspect in that going through puberty can change how one understands sex and gender. As I noted previously, the Atlantic article in the 2nd post of the thread included an interview with a girl who thought she was transgender, but later understood she was not and her apparent dysmorphia was due to not knowing how she could choose to express being a woman.
I am certainly not saying that is true for all trans people, not in the slightest. Merely that simply stopping puberty is not a automatic response with no potential consequences.

 

[innonimatu]

As I mentioned I don't do performances including apologies or self-censorship for the sake of being liked by others. Believe what you will, I can live with that quite happily. If only other people could just be so we'll see fewer with problems...

Please refer to:

I have conflated two different types of treatment - puberty blockers and HRT. Everything I have read says that puberty blockers are largely reversible if one changes their mind. Most people who are on puberty blockers want to transition (which often involves HRT) because most people who are on puberty blockers are trans. I don’t understand why people find this difficult to understand.

You have encouraged me to look into that tomorrow. I find it hard to believe that hormone treatment has no irreversible consequences, and thought that puberty blockers would also, but I'm open to evidence to the contrary. The reversibility issue was apparently the crucial point for this court fight.

In any case, even if they do have irreversible consequences, I do get that it would be in the end a lesser harm choice when both options have potential bad consequences. But this decision wasn't intended to block the use of puberty blockers or hormone treatment, only to create a check beyond that of the medical staff evaluation. Specialized medical staff can be biased: you know if you have a hammer everything may start looking like a nail...

Part of the problem with discussing this issue is all the fencing that has recently been placed around it. Which is the reason why I've avoided talking about this piece of news in the existing threads. Too many calls for self-censorship and tip-toeing around the terms when talking about it. Am I allowed while in a discussion to write that a teenager who asks for puberty blockers, or for hormone treatment, has adjustment problems? Psychological distress? Or will I be attacked just for saying that, because that would be saying this teenager is somehow abnormal, "sick"? But to agree that the risk is worth taking we also have to agree that there is indeed psychological distress, that not acting leads to greater harm than delaying. I want to be able to talk about that and understand the issues involved, not just be told to shut up, apologize for whatever offense and accept one position as some article of faith.

 

[Arwon]

TERF Island TERFing again.

 

[Arwon]

The increased visibility of trans people and frequency of transitioning, and more young people coming out earlier, is a function of moderately decreased oppression and stigma.

It's not a fad and it's not nefarious recruiting, that's just re-running old anti gay bigotry, literally the same moral panic that accompanied the beginnings of gay liberation, in a new hat. Or I guess in new bangs.