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

Status
Not open for further replies.
The problem is TF's post, and indeed any surface-level reasonable post in this thread, is implicitly problematic for three reasons.

Firstly, the premise demonstrated by the OP is anti-scientific and offensive, and it has received less critique than people providing the actual science and providing the lived experiences. This does not help inspire good faith on yet another "let's argue with LGBTQ folks about their lives" thread. This thread does not exist in a vacuum. Please do not pretend it does.

If you want to go down the "anecdotal" route then I'm afraid I'm going to have to go down the "what do you (whoever) even know" route, because an appeal to authority is necessary at this stage.

Secondly, TF's post buys into the inherent fallacy that people who for any reason aren't trans are being encouraged to be trans. This is one of the core (made-up) points in "gender critical" rhetoric. If TF cannot see that it is, or see how actual transphobes latch onto theoretically reasonable concerns to create a boogeyman, then he hasn't done enough reading. Plain and simple. For those wanting the salient quote, here it is:
If we cannot, then, reliably predict which children or adolescents exhibiting these behaviours will permanently transition as adults, we cannot reliably identify which of them it may appropriate to facilitate or encourage to pursue transition as children or adolescents.
Thirdly, he suggests caution as though the default isn't already so. This again suggests a lack of reading.

At which point I have to ask: why? Why speak from a position of alleged concern but apparently have no in-depth knowledge of the actual situation in the UK? Why act surprised or put out when people make unfavourable comparisons?

Once again I have to point out: this thread doesn't exist in a vacuum. There is a prominent Q&A thread that obviously isn't being used by members who obviously have questions to ask. And we've seen in this thread already people who "don't care" about actual factual evidence provided, or other answers given. So if someone considers themselves reasonable, and in good faith, it might be worth going the extra mile to actually differentiate themselves from such.

And no, using a lot of words to do something isn't it. If trans folk are reacting poorly to your concerns, the onus is on you to understand why. The fact that they overlap with transphobic rhetoric is a pretty obvious one - again, assuming reading of the subject.
 
Last edited:
No, it isn't.

What I'm highlighting is a genuine epistemic issue, whether or not children "know" that they are transgender. This has been asserted on the basis that the majority of transgender adults report that they "knew" they were trans in childhood. But this not a straightforwardly accurate claim, because what we are actually describing is that adult trans people have retroactively interpreted their childhood or adolescent experience as knowledge of being trans. Very trans people can honestly claim an explicit awareness of being trans as children, of having through "I am a trans person"; what they are describing is a sense of longing or of identification with another sex or gender, experiences which they have later identified with being trans; the "knowledge" is presented as intuitive rather than as intellectual. This isn't invalid on an emotional level, but it's unreliable as a factual account: adults are notoriously quite bad at providing accurate accounts of their childhood, because the way we habitually organise childhood memories is to make sense of our current identity. We construct narratives that lead to where we are now, and we can reasonably expect that people who have struggled to achieve a secure sense of identity would be more likely to organise their memories into such a narrative.

Further, we are working from a biased sample: people who transitioned as adolescent or adults, and so for whom childhood "knowledge" of being trans was later validated. Even if we disregard everything I've written above, we are still failing to account for people who exhibit dysphoria and/or gender non-conforming behaviour in childhood or adolescence, but do not transition as adults. The experiences or behaviours which are cited as demonstrating childhood knowledge of being trans do not universally correspond to later transition as an adult. It stretches credibility that children who later transition would almost universally possesses knowledge that they are trans as children, but that other children with very similar experiences who do not transition would not possess this knowledge; this would either require us to attribute to children and adolescents some uncanny predictive power which is inaccessible to adults, or it would require us to discover some additional facet or layer of a trans identity which is obvious to children and adolescents but has so far escaped the view of adult researches, both cis and trans.

This strongly suggests that the experiences that adult trans people report as "knowledge" of being trans are rendered as such in retrospective knowledge that they would eventually transition; had they not transitioned, the same experiences would be interpreted differently. I am wholly sympathetic to the idea that later transition helps make sense of childhood or adolescent experiences, but I'm sceptical that this is something which is straightforwardly discovered about those experiences, let alone something which was known at the time. In some cases, it may be true, but self-reporting years or decades after the fact isn't reliable proof of that.

The takeaway from all this is that children probably do not know that they are trans, and that we do not know which children who exhibit emotions or behaviours which are consistent with the reported childhood experiences of adults who will transition will turn out to be trans and which will not. If we cannot, then, reliably predict which children or adolescents exhibiting these behaviours will permanently transition as adults, we cannot reliably identify which of them it may appropriate to facilitate or encourage to pursue transition as children or adolescents. Caution is merited, and caution should increase with the risks of medical intervention; "risks", here, not describing some mysterious second ailment, but the straightforward implications of interrupting somebody's hormonal development, and which increase if the use of puberty blockers is assumed to represent the first step in a more comprehensive set of medical interventions, as some posters here, and certainly a lot of commentators elsewhere, seem to strongly assume.

I hope the above shows I've given this enough consideration that comparisons to anti-vax conspiracy theorists is, at least, uncharitable.

For the record, I never transitioned and it's pretty clear that I always had a female identity from childhood onwards, and I've seen enough records of kids identifying as trans at the early stages of puberty to know that it's definitely not all retrospect. At all.
 
The other problem is this waxing theoretical about what standards of care y’all think would be good is mostly indulgent navel gazing. Yes, trans affirming healthcare is not the same as cancer treatments. That’s not really the issue though. The issue is that this is a bourgeois legal imposition to introduce a political obstacle to healthcare for a specific and vulnerable subset of the population, which the OP with weaponized ignorance has reframed into the commodification of minority issues, and which unexamined transphobia has allowed this discussion to evolve in the direction of laymen questioning trans life experiences.

Yes, you can argue all day and night whether you feel trans affirming healthcare for teens is worth it, and you can cite an anecdote about a queer person who decided they weren’t trans. You are certainly encouraged to do so by this recent decision. That is really the point: this is an issue now, in UK courts, being treated with a kind of fastidious moral panic that references these anecdotes as trump cards. The opinions of the medical field, of psychologists and of psychiatrists, and especially of transpeople? Bunko, according to certain political commentariat. That’s why we oh so desperately need the bourgeois courts of the United goddamn Kingdom to step in and restore some good sense and order.

You’re a fool and a dog if you fall for this. If your position is indeed “I support trans people but I think transitioning should be approached carefully for children,” congratulations, you support the majority opinion of the medical field, and the best thing you can do is not post in this thread.
 
The “ask a” thread is for asking questions only and not stating your opinions. And showing concern over medical intervention for children transitioning does not make someone a transphobe, even if this concern intersects with those who are transphobic.
 
The “ask a” thread is for asking questions only and not stating your opinions. And showing concern over medical intervention for children transitioning does not make someone a transphobe, even if this concern intersects with those who are transphobic.

Thank you for perfectly demonstrating my point as soon as I made it.
 
The “ask a” thread is for asking questions only and not stating your opinions. And showing concern over medical intervention for children transitioning does not make someone a transphobe, even if this concern intersects with those who are transphobic.
You could get answers to the questions you have over said concerns. No?

But yeah Czreth's post wraps it up nicely, honestly. Especially if you're only concerned about making sure your vitally-important opinions are read.
 
It's much harder to ignore the experience - and knowledge of the issue - of trans people when you're asking them questions, though.

And whether or not the policies and views being put forward are deliberately transphobic or merely what the writer view as genuine caring prudence, one key tenet here has been that lived trans experiences, as well as any knowledge trans people may present of the issue (including any studies or statistics we may present) is inherently of little value, because we are biased and flawed.

The well-documented notion of white cis male impartiality - that white cis males views are detached and impartial while minority views are necessarily slanted toward their own selves - run very strongly in the background of this thread.
 
For the record, I never transitioned and it's pretty clear that I always had a female identity from childhood onwards, and I've seen enough records of kids identifying as trans at the early stages of puberty to know that it's definitely not all retrospect. At all.

Maybe it's not the same as people who feel they MUST be of the other gender, though (?)
I mean as a pre-teen I also mostly identified with female, but for specific reasons: eg they just seemed to be a lot better looking, and I was always the type to care about system-imposed supremacy instead of any pleb peers system ^_^
Anyway, I had a massive theory for these things, so at least I can note how it may significantly differ from kid to kid.
 
You could get answers to the questions you have over said concerns. No?

But yeah Czreth's post wraps it up nicely, honestly. Especially if you're only concerned about making sure your vitally-important opinions are read.

That thread isn’t some sort of oracle or encyclopedia and being trans doesn’t automatically make you all right about everything.

You all are showing why it’s so hard to have rational discussions on this issue with the with us or against us line.
 
Maybe it's not the same as people who feel they MUST be of the other gender, though (?)
I mean as a pre-teen I also mostly identified with female, but for specific reasons: eg they just seemed to be a lot better looking, and I was always the type to care about system-imposed supremacy instead of any pleb peers system ^_^
Anyway, I had a massive theory for these things, so at least I can note how it may significantly differ from kid to kid.
My dysphoria isn't that bad, no. The point is more that I think Traitorfish understates how aware people are of their gender identity from childhood.
 
IMO decision to change sex should be made by adults only. Kids don't yet know what means being a man or woman and can't make responsible decision on that matter.
I think quite a lot of people expressed unhappiness with their sex at some point in childhood. I might do too, and not even remember that.
This must not be the reason to mess around with kids bodies.
 
It's much harder to ignore the experience - and knowledge of the issue - of trans people when you're asking them questions, though.

And whether or not the policies and views being put forward are deliberately transphobic or merely what the writer view as genuine caring prudence, one key tenet here has been that lived trans experiences, as well as any knowledge trans people may present of the issue (including any studies or statistics we may present) is inherently of little value, because we are biased and flawed.

The well-documented notion of white cis male impartiality - that white cis males views are detached and impartial while minority views are necessarily slanted toward their own selves - run very strongly in the background of this thread.

Well yeah, if you’re going to insist that we just ask questions and not state our own opinions on the matter. Your own experiences don’t speak for everyone who might be diagnosed with gender dysphoria in childhood.

And I doubt you’re going to find non-white people more receptive on average toward trans issues or even women for that matter (J.K. Rowling). I mean we’ve even seen that gay people in this thread aren’t just accepting the party line here.
 
For the record, I never transitioned and it's pretty clear that I always had a female identity from childhood onwards, and I've seen enough records of kids identifying as trans at the early stages of puberty to know that it's definitely not all retrospect. At all.
I think that he means that the analysis can only be done in retrospect (he might have included an additional caveat on what he includes as a 'successful' self-identification - success in transition - that I don't think I'd agree with except maybe as a downstream variable when further analysing data). I'm not wedded to the concept, since the real-time discomfort of the child (and teen) is also a real thing that could justify intervention regardless of future decisions. But I can also see where he's coming from, because the adult person is the one who eventually has to tell us whether the intervention was retro-actively consented to.

The piece of data I think he's asking for is the relative ratio of youth who believe they're transgendered compared to the eventual ratio of adults who indicate that they knew as youth. This would then be compared to the success rate of doctors agreeing with the youth that their beliefs warranted the intervention. A reasonable proxy for this number would be the number of people who received intervention and report that they regret it and might actually be the number we most care about when we're balancing against the benefits of the intervention. But, while it's a proxy, it won't be the same thing. "Took intervention and later decided to discontinue" = / = "Regret intervention in the first place". And, again, the different weighting of a regretted intervention vs. an opportunity missed.
 
Last edited:
That thread isn’t some sort of oracle or encyclopedia and being trans doesn’t automatically make you all right about everything.

You all are showing why it’s so hard to have rational discussions on this issue with the with us or against us line.

The thread may not be some sort of oracle, and certainly we'd do better with medical experts who have studied the field scientifically in here (alongside, not speaking over, the trans people), but that's not what we have. (And even if we did we have had several indications that participants in this thread consider doctors to be biased as part of the pharmaceutical complex, and are not willing to trust them either).

What we have is a thread where the most knowledgeable people available (the trans people, who would have lived first hand experience (which would, in a legal sense, be testimony) and have researched the topic the most, as it directly impact their lives and their choices) are dismissed as "biased" or "not automatically right about everything", while the theoretical reasoning of third-party observers with no particular experience or knowledge, and who only ever seem to present as evidence a handful of well-worn third-hand stories (ie, hearsay) is elevated because their conclusions follow from their (largely underinformed) premises.

It is indeed hard to have rational discussions when the discussion start with the premise that all people with relevant knowledge are inherently biased and to be ignored.

Well yeah, if you’re going to insist that we just ask questions and not state our own opinions on the matter. Your own experiences don’t speak for everyone who might be diagnosed with gender dysphoria in childhood.

As opposed to your voice speaks for no one ever diagnosed with dysphoria.

Anecdotal evidence is indeed of limited value, but again, first hand testimony does beat hearsay for a reason.

I mean we’ve even seen that gay people in this thread aren’t just accepting the party line here.

Gays are still white cis males, so, you know, not really the point you think you're making.
 
That thread isn’t some sort of oracle or encyclopedia and being trans doesn’t automatically make you all right about everything.

You all are showing why it’s so hard to have rational discussions on this issue with the with us or against us line.
Next time maybe lead with the bolded text. It's obviously what you meant ;)

Insisting your opinion without any background reading or citations is automatically relevant is also a problem.

The thread is a useful resource. It is not automatically truth, but the extent to which you're opposed to participating speaks volumes. You speak of rationality, but you're not even seeking out information. We're discussing a topic that requires knowledge. You cannot be a part of that discussion if you are opposed to reading relevant knowledge on it. You are not being rational.

And no, a trans person isn't guaranteed to be right about "everything". We call that a strawman. Again, not very rational.
 
Next time maybe lead with the bolded text. It's obviously what you meant ;)

Insisting your opinion without any background reading or citations is automatically relevant is also a problem.

The thread is a useful resource. It is not automatically truth, but the extent to which you're opposed to participating speaks volumes. You speak of rationality, but you're not even seeking out information. We're discussing a topic that requires knowledge. You cannot be a part of that discussion if you are opposed to reading relevant knowledge on it. You are not being rational.

And no, a trans person isn't guaranteed to be right about "everything". We call that a strawman. Again, not very rational.

Come on, that is unfair :)
Also, while someone being gay isn't the same as being trans, let's not pretend being gay means you are part of some privileged group.
Not that I am into making this thread about posters.
 
The thread may not be some sort of oracle, and certainly we'd do better with medical experts who have studied the field scientifically in here (alongside, not speaking over, the trans people), but that's not what we have. (And even if we did we have had several indications that participants in this thread consider doctors to be biased as part of the pharmaceutical complex, and are not willing to trust them either).

What we have is a thread where the most knowledgeable people available (the trans people, who would have lived first hand experience (which would, in a legal sense, be testimony) and have researched the topic the most, as it directly impact their lives and their choices) are dismissed as "biased" or "not automatically right about everything", while the theoretical reasoning of third-party observers with no particular experience or knowledge, and who only ever seem to present as evidence a handful of well-worn third-hand stories (ie, hearsay) is elevated because their conclusions follow from their (largely underinformed) premises.

It is indeed hard to have rational discussions when the discussion start with the premise that all people with relevant knowledge are inherently biased and to be ignored.



As opposed to your voice speaks for no one ever diagnosed with dysphoria.

Anecdotal evidence is indeed of limited value, but again, first hand testimony does beat hearsay for a reason.



Gays are still white cis males, so, you know, not really the point you think you're making.

There hasn’t really been much discussion about the medical issues. Instead a lot of accusations of people being transphobic for even raising some concerns over the issues.

I think one person posting here has talked about it the pharmaceutical complex.

I’ve never said trans people should be ignored. What I’ve argued is that they shouldn’t be put on a pedestal as automatically right about the issue and others should have a chance to speak aside from just asking questions, which is what the other thread is limited to.

Some gays are still cis white males. I don’t think white European cultural is a den of transphobia while the rest of the world is so open minded and accepting - maybe Thailand.

Next time maybe lead with the bolded text. It's obviously what you meant ;)

Insisting your opinion without any background reading or citations is automatically relevant is also a problem.

The thread is a useful resource. It is not automatically truth, but the extent to which you're opposed to participating speaks volumes. You speak of rationality, but you're not even seeking out information. We're discussing a topic that requires knowledge. You cannot be a part of that discussion if you are opposed to reading relevant knowledge on it. You are not being rational.

And no, a trans person isn't guaranteed to be right about "everything". We call that a strawman. Again, not very rational.

You’re assuming no one else has read anything about trans issues or medical transition?
 
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..

I need read no more from you to know that you are yet another strawmanng, pathetic would-be cyberbully. Well I'm not impressed by that and you can go pound sand for all I care.
With the reasonable people willing to talk honestly about current issues and engage with other people I will talk.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom