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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

Different issue.
Gay rights were pushed heavily as between consenting adults.

This involves children. That's a lot different and in this case by default it's going to come down to the parents.

It's not perfect.
 
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.

Oh, but I do! Who else wants an apology from Inno for the horribly offensive things he “carelessly” posted in the thread?

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.

While this all may be true, there are already safeguards in place to prevent these things from happening. The number of people who attempt detransition is incredibly small, the number who do so explicitly because they realised they weren’t “actually transgender” is even smaller. IIRC most detransitioners detransition because of lack of support from their friends and family. Also the number of people who get legal access to puberty blockers is extremely small. In 2018, 2519 children were referred to the clinic named in the court case for gender related issues and only 161 were sent on to puberty blockers. There are safeguards already in place, what this court ruling does is ensure that it will be impossible for trans children to legally access puberty blockers in the UK unless their parents are rich enough to bypass the system.
 
While this all may be true, there are already safeguards in place to prevent these things from happening. The number of people who attempt detransition is incredibly small, the number who do so explicitly because they realised they weren’t “actually transgender” is even smaller. IIRC most detransitioners detransition because of lack of support from their friends and family. Also the number of people who get legal access to puberty blockers is extremely small. In 2018, 2519 children were referred to the clinic named in the court case for gender related issues and only 161 were sent on to puberty blockers. There are safeguards already in place, what this court ruling does is ensure that it will be impossible for trans children to legally access puberty blockers in the UK unless their parents are rich enough to bypass the system.
For starters, I find the UK ruling ridiculous and an unnecessary intrusion into private medical matters.
While the stats on blocker access is interesting (and I was unaware of), I was simply reacting to the posts made by people in this thread who, to me at least, appeared to be presenting puberty blockers as a default response to any minor who believes they might be transgender.
 
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...

Right so you're not sorry that you said that the "gay lifestyle" causes AIDS and is a ploy by pornographers to make money, understood.

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.

HRT != puberty blockers. Why do you constantly confuse these two medications?

Specialized medical staff can be biased: you know if you have a hammer everything may start looking like a nail...

Do you believe that judges should have oversight in all specialised medical decisions, including whether to give AIDS medicine to people? What if the doctors were confused and mistook AIDS for something else? After all, if all you have is a hammer...I've heard that AIDS medication has many harmful side-effects, is this correct?

Part of the problem with discussing this issue is all the fencing that has recently been placed around it.

Indeed, it is very distressing to be dictated by others what I can and cannot discuss. Why do you refuse to engage in discussion about how I can avoid getting AIDS from the "gay lifestyle"?

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"?

I am unfamiliar with your country of origin - do you perhaps come from a horrific dystopia where it is illegal to tell people to shut up or to criticise them? Do you not believe in free speech?

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.

Just as I want to learn about how to avoid getting AIDS from the "gay lifestyle" (as pushed onto me, a bisexual man, by pornographers)! Why are you telling me to "bracked" (which I assume is code for "shut up") about this topic? This seems rather hypocritical.
 
For starters, I find the UK ruling ridiculous and an unnecessary intrusion into private medical matters.

Agreed.

While the stats on blocker access is interesting (and I was unaware of), I was simply reacting to the posts made by people in this thread who, to me at least, appeared to be presenting puberty blockers as a default response to any minor who believes they might be transgender.

I cannot speak for this because I am neither a medical expert nor a transperson, but this seems like an incorrect assessment of the position of trans advocates.
 
Different issue.
Gay rights were pushed heavily as between consenting adults.

This involves children. That's a lot different and in this case by default it's going to come down to the parents.

It's not perfect.

You're right, it is a different issue. It's a medical issue. Would you deny children access to medical care by deferring to the parents?
 
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.

Hey, hypothetically speaking, once you've secured a good position for white gay men, why do you care what happens to lesbians, bisexuals, or "transsexuals?"

You don't, especially when you're a selfish misogynist who considers yourself above the particular needs of marginalized groups (advocation for whose rights you arrogantly dismiss as "idpol," since apparently only white male views qualify as truly Proletarian - the blacks, women, and the queers, evidently, being bought off by the Great Advertiser).

Again, speaking hypothetically, that is.
 
FTR: when I first learned about the puberty blockers, I was already a neuroscience student that had already attended lectures on the neuroanatomy of self-identifying transgender people. And, I will admit, I thought the entire concept of puberty blockers was amazing. I'd never thought of it, and it was a "omg, that's so obviously useful" moment.

You know, a simple calculation (or pair of calculations) would be pretty useful. Instead of everyone 'going by feel' on what feels right, it helps to create an internal metric.

Early on, we use puberty blockers in order to reduce psychological pain in someone experiencing distress. As options are slipping away due to body changes, any presenting dysphoria is going to be aggravated. So, an early metric to watch is "does the cohort receiving treatment experience less suffering?" It's an important question. Now, sometimes we 'force' minors to do things 'for their own good'. And sometimes this is the correct pathway. But sometimes, it works out poorly. That's a later measurement.

Later on, the question would be "what percentage of people perceive that they benefited vs were damaged by the choice they made. Because it's easier to measure the regret of a choice you made (vs. an opportunity lost), the language around these surveys needs to correct for that. So, for example, if 80% of people who didn't get puberty blockers end up experiencing lifelong psychological anguish, but 10% of people who did get blockers truly wish they hadn't, then that would be one sample set. Compare it to the opposite, where 10% of people who don't get them end up experiencing lifelong anguish, but 80% of people who got them 'regret it'. Whether we cared about the psychological pain of the teenagers will be very dependent on those numbers.

And I think it's just important to have a sense where those numbers should be. Everything else is going by feel.

By analogy, the majority of Americans think that foreign aid should be reduced to below 10% of the federal budget. That's how they feel about things. And it's important to have a gist in your head before measuring starts.

As to why the courts would be necessary in the UK, well, that would be a function of judges figuring out that the underlying medical regulations were insufficient. Honestly, I can see that happening. We're still in the early days of treating this condition, and it's not like "psychatric research" is a priority in anybody's spending patterns.

I think this is the most useful post in the thread. I agree, studies showing the percentage of people who regretted not doing this treatment, vs those who regretted doing it, are what is needed. Otherwise one is based on "feels", which is pretty dangerous even when deciding your own life, and reckless when deciding that of other people's.
 
You're right, it is a different issue. It's a medical issue. Would you deny children access to medical care by deferring to the parents?

Generally yes. In fact they're legally allowed to do that in the bill of rights.

They're not gonna die if they don't get it.

As I said it's not perfect. I'm not saying such medication shouldn't be used but ultimately it's up to the parents.
 
Except for the fact that visibly non-passable trans women are murdered and harassed into suicide all the time, while those who can 'stealth' are safer. Nothing to moral hysteria about if you can't see it.

To say nothing of the other massive improvements in QOL this could have for dysphoria and other day to day life.
 
Except for the fact that visibly non-passable trans women are murdered and harassed into suicide all the time, while those who can 'stealth' are safer. Nothing to moral hysteria about if you can't see it.

To say nothing of the other massive improvements in QOL this could have for dysphoria and other day to day life.

You can say that about anyone who is denied medication.

Give me what I want or I'll kill myself isn't a particularly persuasive arguement.

Can't even get some drugs here full stop let alone dirt cheap.
 

Well it's essentially what you argued.

Here a lot of complaints are around bureaucracy with various things eg abortion or whatever.

You don't get what you want on demand. It's not that hard but there is a bit of paperwork and procedure to go through.

You don't rock on up to your doctor tell them what you want and then get a script for it.
Wouldn't even be legal for the child to fill out the paperwork.
 
This is not "give me what I want or I kill myself"

This is "dysphoria is known to often result in suicideal ideation and action". As in a medical condition known to often result in those outcomes.

By your argument, depression shouldn't be treated because the only danger is the depressed person threatening suicide unless they receive medication. Which is of course completely false.

The idea that trans people are showing up to doctor to demand treatment or they will kill themselves is a despicable fabricated fantasy you conjured up to depict trans people as unreasonable and justify whatever nonsense policy you wish to apply to them. IT has no reasonable basis in reality, only in your twisted representation of a people you do not seem to hold in high esteem.
 
This is not "give me what I want or I kill myself"

This is "dysphoria is known to often result in suicideal ideation and action".

By your argument, depression shouldn't be treated because the only danger is the depressed person threatening suicide unless they receive medication. It is utter, complete nonsense. .

Certainly true.
However I think (?) Zardnaar just meant that you cannot entirely rely on how the person feels at that moment, more so if they are in pre-puberty. At any rate one needs very rigorous procedures of assessment and (as El Machinae noted) very meticulous statistics on how people who got this kind of treatment fared later on - particularly if they were happy with what they did or regretted it.
 
This is not "give me what I want or I kill myself"

This is "dysphoria is known to often result in suicideal ideation and action".

By your argument, depression shouldn't be treated because the only danger is the depressed person threatening suicide unless they receive medication. Which is of course completely false.

The idea that trans people are showing up to doctor to demand treatment or they will kill themselves is a despicable fantasy you conjured up to depict trans people as unreasonable and justify whatever nonsense policy you wish to apply to them. IT has no reasonable basis in reality.

Similar process with depression. You go make an appointment with doctor and they decide what to do. That's how it works. It's not like doctors are perfect either they'll recommend a course of action or try several drugs.

If your under 18 here you get free doctor's visits. But you'll need a parents or legal guardians signature. Hell any contract you sign isn't legally binding.

As I said there's procedure, paperwork, hoops to jump through that's how it works.
 
In any reasonable society, it is not the place of the people following medical best practice to present evidence for it; it is the place of people challenging it to present credible, solid evidence *against* it.

Courts...are seldom if ever qualified arbiter on what is scientific best practice. And indeed they didn't try to be in this case: this is a ruling that children have to prove their capacity to consent before the courts in order to be taken seriously, not a ruling that the treatment is bad. .

Zardnaar - and there's no hoop to jump to get access to puberty blockers and hormone therapy? What planet are you from? The hoops to gain access to transgender treatment are at least equal, and in most cases much higher than those to gain access to anti-depressants, in pretty much every country I can think of.

To gain anti-depressants, I had to get an appointment with my doctor, get a prescription, and go to the pharmacy to pick it up. That quick and easy. To get HRT, I had to go to a gender therapist, who after an evaluation that took several appointments wrote a letter to my doctor indicating that I was trans and should receive HRT, who then proceded to write me a referal to one of a handful of endocrinologist in the province who deals with transgender patients, who had to have me run several blood tests and others, and who only then prescribed me hormones. The process for anti-depressants took three hours or so from me first walking into the doctor's office (and I got my appointment within a few days of when I called for it); the process for HRT took three *months* from me first walking into the gender therapist's office (plus another month from me first looking for therapy, and getting my first appointment). And THAT is in Canada, which is generally perceived as the most trans-friendly country out there. In the UK, the waitlist to even get that first appointment is measured in years.

What part of that doesn't mean your standards?

Needing court approval when the child challenges parental decisions is certainly good. And putting the threshold high in that case can be understood. Needing court approval when both parent and child approve (which is what the UK high court is enforcing) is not. Putting the threshold high in those cases is even worse.
 
Last edited:
While you demand more studies (on top of the existing ones that have already led to this being accepted as the best medical practice in much of the western world), real lives will be lost. In any reasonable society, it is not the place of the people following medical best practice to present evidence for it; it is the place of people challenging it to present credible, solid evidence *against* it.

Courts...are seldom if ever qualified arbiter on what is scientific best practice. And indeed they didn't try to be in this case: this is a ruling that children have to prove their capacity to consent before the courts in order to be taken seriously, not a ruling that the treatment is bad. .

No ultimately it's letting kids decide things for themselves.

I remember being a kid and a teenager.

None of us were really qualified to determine what's best for us. Espicially being a teenager.

I don't think any court anywhere is going to rule that a child can over rule their parents.

There are places they can get help if their parents are really crap.

So what you're essentially arguing is that this counts as neglect or abuse. If the parents say no that's the end of it.

If it is neglect or abuse then the child would have to complain, investigation would be launched then the child would have to be removed from the parents.

You can't really force the parent to go along with it or the consequences of it if you could eg the parent then decided I can't look after my child and then signs it over to state care.
 
This is I feel the main issue. There is no reason for a court to get involved when a doctor knows several times better.

It just clearly shows what is really going on here, they don't care about oversight or good processes they just want to make things harder for trans people to be well. Imagine being a 13 year old trans person who is forced to go and justify your reality to a court of law. Its just adding stress and troubles on top of what is already a stressful experience. Its cruelty with no real discernible purpose. I can't stand them, let the all these courts just crumble into dust and wash away into the sea.
 
This is I feel the main issue. There is no reason for a court to get involved when a doctor knows several times better.

It just clearly shows what is really going on here, they don't care about oversight or good processes they just want to make things harder for trans people to be well. Imagine being a 13 year old trans person who is forced to go and justify your reality to a court of law. Its just adding stress and troubles on top of what is already a stressful experience. Its cruelty with no real discernible purpose. I can't stand them, let the all these courts just crumble into dust and wash away into the sea.

When I was 13 I barely had the judgement to tie my own shoes.

If one could jump in a time machine and go and smack said 13 year old around the head and tell him to sort his crap out.

On a practical level without the parents consent how do you stop the parent retaliating?

Said 13 year old is still going to be dependent on the parents for shelter, food, clothing etc.

Parent kicks kid out what do you do?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom