Anti-trans bigots: "Puberty blockers are child abuse"

Post Reply New Topic

I have a sibling who is trans(Demi-boy) and is getting top surgery soon. I hope that they will find new comfort in their soon to be new shape.

I wish one of the only two trans persons I know - a friend's friend - did this before the transition.
They used to be a guy with serious problems. Now they is a lesbian with serious problems.
Apparently, some people imagine this kind of treatment would magically solve all their issues. It wouldn't.

That is so important . For practical and social reasons unless I had had help and support( which never came) any process of transitioning would not have gone well .

I wonder where that leaves people who definitely want SRS , but for whom practical and social issues are red flags against it .

This is why withholding puberty blockers is not child abuse, and it is not bigotry to say so -- it is a simple fact of medical science.

I think if child has problems , but otherwise fits the criteria for the use of puberty blockers , then prompt help should be given to ensure that puberty blockers can be used as soon as is viable .

It's certainly not good enough to say 'this child has problems so the use of puberty blockers is permanently off the table'

Groundbreaking UW study: Transgender kids’ gender identity is as strong as that of cisgender children

Slightly off topic , but might interest some .


https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-ne ... -children/

When a child's problems are insurmountable and permanent, then the avoidance of puberty blockers should be permanent, as well. Thus, in some cases, it is "good enough" from a medical standpoint.

Only 822 kids ... 38.6% identified as transgender ... 61.4% identified as cisgender ... and the study isn't even completed yet.

I would like to see the final results, but I may not live that long.

As a blanket policy it would not be good enough . That doesn't mean there aren't situations where the use of puberty blockers is permanently contraindicated .

I don't see any simple blanket policy convenient for this issue. Each case needs individual evaluation.

As a "blanket policy", it is certainly "good enough" to say, "Address any psychological, medical or social problems that could interfere with treatment" first, and if those problems are insurmountable, then withhold the GnRH for the sake of the child's own health and well-being.

In such cases, a physician's opinion should outweigh the opinions of the child and/or the child's parents.

But of course, the parents could always shop around until they found a physician more interested in selling treatments than in practicing good medicine.

I don't disagree with the 'Address any problems first' position . That's thoroughly sensible . The contentious part is when should a problem , or problems , be declared insurmountable ?

As for the physician's opinion being paramount . Of course - unless the physician has an agenda that could bias the decision making process .

That is entirely up to members of the appropriate medical review boards, and not a random collection of self-righteous social justice warriors lacking in medical training.And how does one find out when a physician has such an 'agenda'?

Follow the money...

Who it should be up to(I agree it should be medical professionals) and if and when problems are insurmountable are separate things . Unless you think there should be no consensus as to relevant criteria for arriving at such a decision . If so subjectivity would reign supreme .

You're muddling the issue.

The people who decide whether or not a problem is insurmountable should be medical professionals exercising their own qualified objectivity (not bigotry), and not those who practice egocentric subjectivity -- not the children, not their parents, not the self-righteous social justice warriors, and not the general public -- only medical professionals should make the distinction, since they have the training, the knowledge, and the more complete understanding of the medical factors involved.

Again, there will always be people who shop around for someone who will sell them the treatments they want without regard to any actual medical needs -- which is why people travel to foreign countries to get the treatments they want -- so the only 'abuse' that occurs is performed by those who treat their patients against the better medical judgment.

And how to clarify that a medical professional is being objective? Especially when there is so much dispute between medical professionals. Go back a few decades and you would probably have quite a few medical professionals that would say all transgender people should be institutionalised. Saying that the run of a mill medical professional is the instant expert on every subject ignores that said medical expert could be a fundamentalist that never has any attention to recommend something like transitioning, might choose instead some sort of conversion therapy, or it could be someone who does not really care and might just recommend transitioning without nuance.

Of course an expert should be always differed to for insight of precedence and diagnosis, but blanket statements put forward by an "expert" who thinks that such a blanket statement can be made, such as saying in almost no circumstances except physical health should puberty blockers be allowed, ignores a lot of personal experiences. What magz anecdote should give is not a statement on a certain doctor or parent saying not to let puberty blockers, but that the treatment should come with things like counselling that helps deal with core problems in the mind that might only partially be related to the hormones.

It is actually a well trodden piece of evidence, where trans people can feel a lot of problems, and may feel like transitioning will solve them all, but there still be a lot of problems that need to be solved via counseling. Such as a trans woman that hates how non-feminine she looks, but even after the treatment she will still focus on aspects of herself while looking in the mirror that still don't live up to her standard. Like an anorexic person that still thinks she looks fat. This was actually the conclusion to the study that I found wrongfully referenced by ACPeds person, ad pushed by LifeSiteNews to try and say that transitioning causes harm, rather that things like further counseling is required in addition to things like hormones.