• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

LGBTQ Stuff (split from other political threads)

... I am also loathe to see a wholesale transfer of policy and legal authority surrendered in its entirety to government control ...
And that's where the rub is. Big Government (of all stripes) tends to be better at broad, overarching policies than tighter, more nuanced tools that address all the variations on the theme discussed here in the thread - and there's likely even more to consider.
 
Uncontrolled experimentation on children is what is at stake here. It is Catch-22 - without experimentation no-one can know the long-term effects of treatments, but experimentation on people unwilling or unable to consent is full-stop objectionable. Children cannot meaningfully consent without first experiencing a natural adolescence and adulthood.
 
This where I feel most of us are sorely under qualified to make any real determination one way or another. I only know what I think I know via friends whose children underwent the change. I’d be curious to see the numbers on how many de-transition and more importantly why. Some light reading on the subject makes the case that de transitioning is not always a case of regret but the social reaction/stigma etc they face after the fact.

I lean towards that myself. Not because it’s a parental right per say and what not but I feel that there isn’t enough data and or enough long term studies to know the actual effects. Beneficial or not.

One of the things that challenges that, is that the later one waits for that change the worse the outcome. I’m not using that as argument for or against, just what some of the research points to as a reason supporting early reassignment.

A timely article in the Telegraph then


I had never heard of her before yesterday but I understand she is something of a cause celebre in the US.

WRT unhappy childhoods and unfit parents or unfit foster parents or unfit guardians or social workers or orphanages... It strikes me that there are no guarantees on anything. One set of dice is much the same as another. I tend to lean towards letting things play out or as the article suggests

Their choice, as set out in the literature they found online, was between “affirmation” or “watch and wait”. With the benefit of hindsight, Cole wishes they had chosen the latter course, but instead they sought out medical help – though she places no blame on them.

High school years can be miserable at the best of times as you try to figure out who and what you are while you are changing and you are surrounded by so many encouraging boys and girls all fighting the same battles. This, in my view, fits in the same spectrum as supporting kids against bullying and assisting in career development. Try and get the kids to slow down and let them know that "this too shall pass". They will have lots of time to make permanent mistakes later.

Chloe Cole: ‘I was told transitioning would save me. It destroyed my life’​

The 19-year-old who felt pressured into surgery wants to be a girl again – and wants Congress to stop doctors dictating change

ByPeter Stanford27 August 2023 • 3:00pm

Chloe Cole

Chloe Cole is now a household name in America, after sharing her cautionary tale with the US Congress
Chloe Cole remembers the exact moment she knew she wanted to detransition. The 19-year-old from California’s Central Valley had undergone “top” surgery (a full or partial mastectomy) in her mid-teens to transition from female to male and returned to high school as Leo. Then, in 2021, as part of her psychology module, she found herself learning about family and parenting.
“It came as a huge wake-up call to me,” says Cole. “As I listened, I realised that I had a maternal instinct, that one day I’d like to have kids of my own, but that the effects of being prescribed puberty blockers and testosterone during my transition might mean I couldn’t.”
With hindsight, she agrees it is odd that it hadn’t dawned on her before, but she was only 15 at the time of her surgery and having children one day or being able to breastfeed them really wasn’t the first thing on her mind. “But sitting in that class, it hurt me really deeply to realise how a part of me had been taken away.”
The doctors, who she now says “railroaded” her into surgery, had assured her transitioning would make her happier. “In that moment in the psychology class, I knew that I was losing more and more of myself. It shattered my heart into a million pieces.”
We are meeting via Zoom with Cole – dressed in pink, her long, dark hair hanging loose to frame her face, her dark eyes compelling – now a household name in America, after sharing her cautionary tale with the US Congress as part of a hearing about “The Dangers of ‘Gender-Affirming Care’ for Children” last month.
It was her latest and most significant appearance on a public platform, but politicians have been courting her for months. Some – mostly Republicans – in several state legislatures have introduced no fewer than 66 bills – some known as “Chloe’s Law” – that ban the sort of “gender-affirming” treatment she underwent being given to anyone under 18, and bring in other curbs on trans rights.

Fuelling their legislative efforts are figures from the respected Williams Institute at UCLA that show the number of 13- to 17-year-olds in America identifying as transgender doubled to 1.4 per cent between 2017 and 2020. One in five transgender people in the US is now in this teenage age-group, though in the population at large they make up 0.5 per cent, a figure that has remained steady over the same period. (In the UK, the most recent equivalent official figures, from 2019, show 0.05 per cent – or 1 in 2,000 – of 13- to 17-year-olds identifying as transgender.)
Estimates for those who, like Cole, then go on to
detransition back to their original biological sex range between 2 and 13 per cent of the transgender population, according to The New York Times. The wide gap between the two reveals quite what a hot potato this issue has become in the States – as in the UK.
Does Cole worry that sharing so publicly the intimate details of her story of detransitioning means being exploited by those on both sides in America’s culture wars?
“At its core, the issue that I am focusing on is totally apolitical,” she replies. “It is something that should concern everybody, regardless of party lines because it is tearing kids apart from their families, destroying their lives, and infecting institutions from health care to education.”
On the accusation that she is caught up in the culture war clashes dividing America, she is firm in her denial. “It is much bigger than that. That is a very trivial way of putting it.”
For a small town-girl from rural California, standing up to give evidence before the nation’s lawmakers was, she concedes, nerve-wracking. “But I was excited to give my testimony up there and answer everybody’s questions. When I go back to the footage, you can see me bouncing in my chair. I was so pumped.”
It wasn’t quite the answer I was expecting and reminds me that, for all her polish as a speaker, she is still just 19. It is early morning in her austere bedroom in the family home in California. She only got back late last night from addressing a school board in the southern part of the state.
Yet she is full of energy and accusation – or, if you prefer, pumped. Her campaign, she says, is to save others from going through “Nazi-era experiments” carried out on her body by doctors. She is currently pursuing them through the courts.
“I am not opposed to people transitioning,” she makes clear at the outset, “but 18 would be a good marker for the start of the process. With the medical aspect, those under 25 are not fit to take on something like this. It affects every area of your life – social, family, sexual, reproductive.”

As she knows all too well. Chloe Cole grew up between Modesto and Stockton as the youngest of five siblings. Both her mother and father had two children from their previous relationships. “There is a significant age gap of about eight years between me and my two brothers and two sisters, so it was lonely.”
It was a loving home, she says, but also a distanced one. “I wasn’t super close to my parents. I must have had some sort of attachment issue. I started at five or six to reject physical affection.”
At elementary school, she struggled to make friends and was bullied. She was subsequently diagnosed with ADHD. “And I had symptoms of autism, but every time my mom and dad tried to get an assessment, they were told, ‘oh no, she’s too smart, too intelligent, too well spoken for her age for us to suspect she is on the spectrum’.”
Her distrust of the medical professionals, it becomes clear, runs deep. She is a strong supporter of the campaign Do No Harm, which accuses doctors of breaking the Hippocratic Oath in cases such as hers.
For her, puberty came early. “It was a really difficult time for me to deal with all of this change.” At this point she began to spend more and more time alone on the internet following social media posts, observing but never joining in.
“What I saw was that I was growing up in the age of thick, curvy, bottom-heavy girls and I felt I could never meet that ideal. I could never be a good woman.” Previously a “super-feminine kid”, as a result she started wearing “cargo shorts, more boyish muted, toned-down colours, and cut my hair short”.
She also began to read online about LGBT people, and accounts of those who had changed gender. “At that stage, I was around 12 or 13 and wondering what my role in the world would be, what I’d be like as an adult. All these new-found words appealed. I didn’t always act 100 per cent as was expected of a girl. I decided that I was going to be a boy. It was what made the most sense.”
She told her parents by writing them a letter. How did they take it? “Pretty well, but they were also very nervous. They had no idea what to do.”
Their choice, as set out in the literature they found online, was between “affirmation” or “watch and wait”. With the benefit of hindsight, Cole wishes they had chosen the latter course, but instead they sought out medical help – though she places no blame on them.
She was sent to a therapist, “but the moment that gender was mentioned, the doctors were going all out on that. They knew I had a history of mental health struggles and a learning disorder, but they said these had nothing to do with this. My distress was coming from my body, they said, from my gender dysphoria.”
Things thereafter moved very quickly: puberty blockers at 13 that put her in a state of menopause – “hot flushes and body itching and aching”; and then testosterone injections that caused an “uncomfortable and difficult” increase in libido.
Next her parents were told that upper body surgery – a double mastectomy – was recommended. The doctors framed the choice as between having “a dead daughter or a living son”. Reluctantly the Coles gave their consent.
Their daughter was pleased at the time. “I was the one pushing for it,” says Cole. “It was the only option I thought I had, based on what my medical advisers told me about treating gender dysphoria. In the trans community there is this mantra that sometimes people can have a brain of the opposite sex. I really clung very tightly to that belief because for me it explained why I felt the way I was feeling. I wasn’t like the other girls at school.”

The recovery from major surgery was slow and painful, but at first life as a boy – she had started a new school – was positive. “I thought I looked awesome – fit, healthy, like a boy of my age. I felt I had more control over how I looked. It was super exciting.”
But doubts set in almost immediately. “For the longest time it was hard to admit to myself that I could have been wrong but I also missed looking like a girl, having long hair, being able to wear dresses and skirts and stuff.”
A few girls had crushes on Leo – “but I had no interest in them and I was still attracted to guys, but they didn’t look at me in case people thought they were gay. I had no chance to explore romantic relationships like my peers were. It made me feel once again there was something wrong with me.”
It was, she recalls, a downward spiral, during which she signed up for the psychology class. Her determination in its wake to detransition did little initially to make things better. “I spent a lot of time in bed, unable to get up, crying silently. I didn’t know what life would look like from there and who I would be, but I just knew I couldn’t take any more testosterone shots.”
What has followed these past two years has an arduous journey of highs and lows. The physical complications are with her every day, she says. “I’ve had issues with urinary tract infections since I started on testosterone, blood, blood clots and even bits of tissue in my urine.”
Her cycles are “fairly irregular” and “unusually light”. “For a woman that sounds like a blessing but it can be indicative of a larger problem and that scares me.”
She clings to the hope that she might be able to get pregnant and have a baby, “but I don’t know if I will be able to safely carry a child to term, or if there will be a risk of birth defects”.

In making her case for all medical interventions to be halted until the age of 18, Cole has shown herself utterly unafraid to answer unprompted questions that people may have but are too shy to ask. “What has been inflicted on my body has affected me sexually. I am experiencing sexual dysfunction in several forms and that’s deeply painful to me because now I am an adult woman, I’m not a girl anymore, and that is a huge part of being an adult.”
She doesn’t know, she says in a matter-of-fact way, if she will ever be able to experience “the full spectrum of sexual pleasure”. But what intrudes most on her life, on a daily basis, relates to the skin grafts she had after her mastectomy.
“In the summer of last year the grafts began to weep this clear fluid that gets on my clothing and my bedding. I wear bandages on my chest again, something I stopped doing two months after my surgery.”
She made a phone appointment with the surgeon who removed her breasts. “I expected him to know what was going on, but he was nonchalant throughout the call. His suggestion to me was to put Vaseline on the wound to keep it moist, but it gave me a skin infection and the grafts now weep twice the amount of fluid.”
If she is even-toned, verging on emotionally distanced in telling her own extraordinary story, Cole’s anger boils up when she talks about her doctors. When she challenged them on the physical trauma of detransitioning (not a word they will use, she points out), they told her it was “just another part of your gender journey”.
“I shot that down. This is my rejection of that ideology.”
If she sounds confrontational, then she is, driven on by the realisation that, “I will never know what life could have been like if I had just been allowed to be a kid. I am so incredibly angry that any adult feels they have a right to do this to a kid. It is never, ever appropriate for a child to go under what I went under. No child can consent to anything like this.”
But her parents did? “Under duress. They were told it was going to be a net benefit for me, that it was going to save my life. It destroyed my life.”

What, though, of the other trans people who are on the record as saying surgery saved theirs? “I’ve met a few trans gender adults, who are older and well-adjusted. I attribute that to the fact that they transitioned after extensive psychological evaluation, and after being given the full picture of how this may affect them in terms of side effects and complications.”
They were also, she adds, “mostly past the age of 25, which is a marker as for when most people’s brains are fully developed and when you have a decent amount of experience in life. They were allowed to grow up, to develop, and could then make a decision to transition. But I’ve never yet met someone who transitioned as a child who isn’t in a horrible situation.”
It is the sort of anecdotal remark that will infuriate those who attack her on social media. If their slurs on her have any impact, she is very good at not showing it. “When I first detransitioned and started talking about my regrets, it was awful. It was the trenches. I stopped talking for a while, but it prepared me for what has come since.”
Nowadays, when the barrage comes after each public appearance and it is “the same arguments over and over again”, her response is “to laugh my butt off. I often have people saying I’m not real, that I am some kind of cyber operative, that the length of my arms prove I am a biological male. It’s all crazy stuff and anyway I have so many more people who support me for what I say.”
Some of those admirers are suggesting that Cole could have a career as a politician ahead of her. She shakes her head. “I feel like it would be monotonous. I’d rather be an activist and choose my issues – like family and children.”
If a decade ago, Cole was wondering how her life would turn out, though still only 19 she is now having a glimpse of what one sort of fulfilment could look like. But what pain to endure to get there. When I say it out loud to her, she shrugs it off. With an issue where every word you use takes you into a minefield, she is determinedly unfazed.
“I never really have moments when I question why I am doing it. Or when I ask, should I stop doing it. I do it because it matters. Many people out there need to hear it to understand just how serious this issue is.”
 
I agree whole or partly with everything you said except this last part.

Yes, it is true that those who transition have several mental health comorbidities including depressive disorder (70%), anxiety (63%), post-traumatic stress disorder (33%), attention deficit disorder (24%), autism spectrum condition (20%), eating disorder (19%), and personality disorder (17%)(1), that later once resolved cause them to de-transition.

However, I'm not talking about people transitioning medically, I'm just talking about outward appearance and forms of address. If doings these things helps manage some of those above mentioned mental health issues, than what really is the harm? If your child's psychiatrist came to you and said "your 15 year old is at an extreme risk of committing suicide, and I believe allowing them to identify as the gender of their choice will help reduce that possibility", are you going to say "no"?

I think, though, that is the point. How would a reasonable parent act? And the reasonable individual seems to be the standard reference in most legal matters that I am encountering these days. The parents have to at least be given the opportunity to screw up. They have to be kept in the loop. If they and their child are at odds then the child should be able to reach out for support. But even then the parents need to be kept involved even if they are over-ruled.
 
A reminder that affirming gender identity and gender affirmation surgery are two separate beasts that are still being chimeraed together in a lot of these discussion.

Affirming the gender identity is merely acknowledging that a person feels like they are a different person than they were raised to be. How many of you still identify as Catholics after being raised as one? You were born one, right so you should still be practicing and reciting the Fatima well into adulthood? Allowing freedom of thought and expression is fundamental right in our Charter.

A child using a different name/pronouns, dressing as they feel most comfortable, and expressing their preferred gender are all things I think we can agree are not only understandable, but also required to support youth experiencing gender dysphoria. Those things are well within the control of child to dictate and should be advocated by those involved in the child's well being (parents, social workers, teachers, medical professionals etc.).

Gender affirmation surgery, however, is a completely different topic altogether and this is where disinformation is rampant on both sides of the political spectrum. For reference, I have been through this discussion for my daughter who is 16 and came out to us last year.

Firstly, gender affirming surgery is not permitted on anyone under the age of 18 unless there is a case of hermaphrodidity that could make both sets of genitals non-viable. Prior to, most medical professionals will prescribe hormone blockers to delay puberty, so that if its the desire still at 18, the transition is less impactful. Should that person change their mind, it would just be a case of late puberty occurring.

Those looking to do so in order to complete gender transformation must wait until they at 18, regardless of parental support or emancipation at the age of 16. Even then, there is a sequence in which "top" surgery (removal or addition of breast tissue) must occur prior to "bottom" surgery (alteration of gentials) and they cannot be done concurrently.

Secondly, the road to gender affirming surgery is in the years realm and not something done overnight. In Ontario, the minimum is a diagnosis of gender dysphoria for 2 years and counselling/support from someone providing medical care for it. The messaging from the patient must fit 3 parameters: Consistent, Persistent, and Direct. There must also be a medical concurrence that there is a benefit to the patient transitioning, rather than just greenlighting the procedure because the patient says "go for it."

Right now, barring the many mental health issues facing her, it would be easier for my daughter to join the P Res than get gender affirming surgery. I also can't sign her in for the surgery, but could for the Reserves.

If it's her desire in 2 years to still transition fully, you're goddammit right I will be there to support her and help her make that choice and everything that goes along with it. For now? How cruel and uncaring would I be to deny her the ability to feel comfortable in who she is?

When I was 16, it was like pulling teeth to get my parents to stop calling me by my childhood nickname in public because it made me feel belittled and infantilized. I could only imagine the pain some of these Trans kids face being forced into pretending to be someone they don't feel they are in their very core of their being.

Do I think for some kids it's "trendy" or a phase? Sure. Does that make it something I'd want the government to legislate away? Hell no.

Some people absolutely suck as parents and should not be responsible for their own lives, or that of another human being. That human being, however, had no say in being brought into this world, let alone being brought into this world as a trans person. What they do have control over is how they wish to be perceived in life and supported by those around them.
 
Prior to, most medical professionals will prescribe hormone blockers to delay puberty, so that if its the desire still at 18, the transition is less impactful. Should that person change their mind, it would just be a case of late puberty occurring.

Hormone blocking is almost as bad. It is already obvious that hindering proper biological development creates new health problems. We have almost no knowledge how those effects will cascade in middle and late age.

Children don't always get everything they say they want. It's not clear why this should be different. It's certainly not clear why, if there have to be any affirmations/nudges/interventions, they have to be affirmations/nudges/interventions in only one direction.

First do no harm.
 
Hormone blocking is almost as bad. It is already obvious that hindering proper biological development creates new health problems. We have almost no knowledge how those effects will cascade in middle and late age.
Really? Because there seems to be a solid body of knowledge already on HRT, blockers, and the like with peer reviewed science; both on the risks and benefits.

Children don't always get everything they say they want. It's not clear why this should be different.
They're not throwing a fit about being able to stay out late or get the latest Nerf Gun... this is about being able to express who they feel they are as a person existing in the world. You're comparing apples to firetruck if that is the case.

It's certainly not clear why, if there have to be any affirmations/nudges/interventions, they have to be affirmations/nudges/interventions in only one direction.
Because one is abusive and the other is supportive?

Those "affirmations, nudges, interventions" that force a child to swim against the current has worked so well in the form of conversion therapy/"pray the gay away" for LGBT people in the past (which is now illegal in Canada), why not give it a go for Trans kids?

There isn't a higher risk or anything of suicide or abuse when that's the norm....

First do no harm.
That's the point. There is irrefutable harm done to the mental health of a kid forced to exist as the wrong gender. Here are the stats:

Results: We included 6800 adolescents aged 15–17 years, including 1130 (16.5%) who indicated some degree of same-gender attraction, 265 (4.3%) who were unsure of their attraction and 50 (0.6%) who reported a transgender identity. Compared with cisgender, heterosexual adolescents, transgender adolescents showed 5 times the risk of suicidal ideation (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.63 to 6.75; 58% v. 10%) and 7.6 times the risk of suicide attempt (95% CI 4.76 to 12.10; 40% v. 5%). Among cisgender adolescents, girls attracted to girls had 3.6 times the risk of previous-year suicidal ideation (95% CI 2.59 to 5.08) and 3.3 times the risk of having ever attempted suicide (95% CI 1.81 to 6.06), compared with their heterosexual peers. Adolescents attracted to multiple genders had 2.5 times the risk of suicidal ideation (95% CI 2.12 to 2.98) and 2.8 times the risk of suicide attempt (95% CI 2.18 to 3.68). Youth questioning their sexual orientation had twice the risk of having attempted suicide in their lifetime (95% CI 1.23 to 3.36).

First do no harm? Hippocratic Oaths apply for mental health support just as much.
 
A reminder that affirming gender identity and gender affirmation surgery are two separate beasts that are still being chimeraed together in a lot of these discussion.

Affirming the gender identity is merely acknowledging that a person feels like they are a different person than they were raised to be. How many of you still identify as Catholics after being raised as one? You were born one, right so you should still be practicing and reciting the Fatima well into adulthood? Allowing freedom of thought and expression is fundamental right in our Charter.

A child using a different name/pronouns, dressing as they feel most comfortable, and expressing their preferred gender are all things I think we can agree are not only understandable, but also required to support youth experiencing gender dysphoria. Those things are well within the control of child to dictate and should be advocated by those involved in the child's well being (parents, social workers, teachers, medical professionals etc.).

Gender affirmation surgery, however, is a completely different topic altogether and this is where disinformation is rampant on both sides of the political spectrum. For reference, I have been through this discussion for my daughter who is 16 and came out to us last year.

Firstly, gender affirming surgery is not permitted on anyone under the age of 18 unless there is a case of hermaphrodidity that could make both sets of genitals non-viable. Prior to, most medical professionals will prescribe hormone blockers to delay puberty, so that if its the desire still at 18, the transition is less impactful. Should that person change their mind, it would just be a case of late puberty occurring.

Those looking to do so in order to complete gender transformation must wait until they at 18, regardless of parental support or emancipation at the age of 16. Even then, there is a sequence in which "top" surgery (removal or addition of breast tissue) must occur prior to "bottom" surgery (alteration of gentials) and they cannot be done concurrently.

Secondly, the road to gender affirming surgery is in the years realm and not something done overnight. In Ontario, the minimum is a diagnosis of gender dysphoria for 2 years and counselling/support from someone providing medical care for it. The messaging from the patient must fit 3 parameters: Consistent, Persistent, and Direct. There must also be a medical concurrence that there is a benefit to the patient transitioning, rather than just greenlighting the procedure because the patient says "go for it."

Right now, barring the many mental health issues facing her, it would be easier for my daughter to join the P Res than get gender affirming surgery. I also can't sign her in for the surgery, but could for the Reserves.

If it's her desire in 2 years to still transition fully, you're goddammit right I will be there to support her and help her make that choice and everything that goes along with it. For now? How cruel and uncaring would I be to deny her the ability to feel comfortable in who she is?

When I was 16, it was like pulling teeth to get my parents to stop calling me by my childhood nickname in public because it made me feel belittled and infantilized. I could only imagine the pain some of these Trans kids face being forced into pretending to be someone they don't feel they are in their very core of their being.

Do I think for some kids it's "trendy" or a phase? Sure. Does that make it something I'd want the government to legislate away? Hell no.

Some people absolutely suck as parents and should not be responsible for their own lives, or that of another human being. That human being, however, had no say in being brought into this world, let alone being brought into this world as a trans person. What they do have control over is how they wish to be perceived in life and supported by those around them.
Thanks for that. I know you above most here have more knowledge on this subject. Glad to have your perspective.

Unfortunately I think to an extent we are suffering from what is being perceived south of the border and somehow there is a trend to want to project that here. Politically that is.
 
Really? Because there seems to be a solid body of knowledge already on HRT, blockers, and the like with peer reviewed science; both on the risks and benefits.


They're not throwing a fit about being able to stay out late or get the latest Nerf Gun... this is about being able to express who they feel they are as a person existing in the world. You're comparing apples to firetruck if that is the case.


Because one is abusive and the other is supportive?

Those "affirmations, nudges, interventions" that force a child to swim against the current has worked so well in the form of conversion therapy/"pray the gay away" for LGBT people in the past (which is now illegal in Canada), why not give it a go for Trans kids?

There isn't a higher risk or anything of suicide or abuse when that's the norm....


That's the point. There is irrefutable harm done to the mental health of a kid forced to exist as the wrong gender. Here are the stats:



First do no harm? Hippocratic Oaths apply for mental health support just as much.
Yes, we know blockers do physical harm right now. QED for that. We don't know much about late-life effects because there just aren't a lot of people there yet.

It's impossible to characterize as "supportive" or "abusive" anything except a strictly neutral position as long as it's possible that a child is not expressing a deeply innate immutable lifetime desire. We know that the phenomenon is transient in the large numbers of people who "went through a phase", kept their gender, and got on with their sexuality, and talked about it. "Conversion therapy" is an extremity, which I did not in any way advocate; it is a strawman.

It is also irrefutable that mental harm was done to some people who feel they were inappropriately pushed to elect gender transition, including surgery. "First do no harm" means not risking harm. The default position is "yes, your condition is lamentable, but it is limited to you."

Perhaps a statement of principles ought be adopted that reads out all the nonsense and harm that is packaged in with the issue.
 
Yes, we know blockers do physical harm right now. QED for that. We don't know much about late-life effects because there just aren't a lot of people there yet.

It's impossible to characterize as "supportive" or "abusive" anything except a strictly neutral position as long as it's possible that a child is not expressing a deeply innate immutable lifetime desire. We know that the phenomenon is transient in the large numbers of people who "went through a phase", kept their gender, and got on with their sexuality, and talked about it. "Conversion therapy" is an extremity, which I did not in any way advocate; it is a strawman.

It is also irrefutable that mental harm was done to some people who feel they were inappropriately pushed to elect gender transition, including surgery. "First do no harm" means not risking harm. The default position is "yes, your condition is lamentable, but it is limited to you."

Perhaps a statement of principles ought be adopted that reads out all the nonsense and harm that is packaged in with the issue.

What sort of numbers support the « irrefutable harm was done to some people ». Not arguing really, but what are you basing that on? Is it 50% of the 10% of transgender that undergo the actual surgery? Is it more or is it less? I honestly have no real data and want to know what data people would be using to formulate their positions.

The numbers I’ve seen is that the number is as low as 1%. Regret after Gender-affirmation Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Prevalence

Again, this is only a cursory look at a much more complex issue. While there are cases being touted by social media and such, is it really a massive number or a low number.

Any medical procedure entails risk. 1% of a small population percentage seems like an acceptable risk considering the alternative could be worse.
 
Hormone blocking is almost as bad. It is already obvious that hindering proper biological development creates new health problems. We have almost no knowledge how those effects will cascade in middle and late age.

Children don't always get everything they say they want. It's not clear why this should be different. It's certainly not clear why, if there have to be any affirmations/nudges/interventions, they have to be affirmations/nudges/interventions in only one direction.

First do no harm.
We had a doctor suggest them for our daughter, my wife asked if they realized just how many lawsuits are underway in regard to them and the longterm health risks involved with them. He had no clue about them.
As for the current lawsuits in different countries by "Transitioned" kids I hope they take the doctors and others long and hard for lot's of money and make every doctor and health board extremely nervous about doing this stuff.
The schools push sexuality and questioning gender onto to kids far to early and cause a whole host of problems. don't underestimate a zealous adult's abilty to be really stupid in the pursuit of a agenda.
 
We had a priest suggest conversion therapy for our daughter, my wife asked if they realized just how many lawsuits are underway in regard to them and the longterm health risks involved with them. He had no clue about them.
As for the current lawsuits in different countries by "Saved" kids I hope they take the clergy and others long and hard for lot's of money and make every religious leader and zealot extremely nervous about doing this stuff.
The church pushes heterosexuality and rigidity in gender onto to kids far to early and cause a whole host of problems. don't underestimate a zealous adult's abilty to be really stupid in the pursuit of a agenda.
I amended your post to reflect some of the other experiences Trans kids have had. Shoe goes on the other foot more often than your experience dictated.
 
As for the current lawsuits in different countries by "Transitioned" kids I hope they take the doctors and others long and hard for lot's of money and make every doctor and health board extremely nervous about doing this stuff.

Another thing on this, with our current crisis of doctor shortages everywhere, is this something we need to focus on? Perhaps the wait times for surgery might change the persons mind..
 
I'm going to make a prediction: 20 years from now pedophilia will be a recognized sexual orientation and will be protected under human rights legislation (I'm not saying the physical act itself will be, but maybe there will be a few Charter challenges on the age of consent). And then we will have people being canceled over old tweets they made about pedophilia. Remember, the way people feel about pedophilias is the way that people used to think about gays.

That being said, I hope I'm wrong.
 
I amended your post to reflect some of the other experiences Trans kids have had. Shoe goes on the other foot more often than your experience dictated.

Because team A did something abhorrent in the past does not mean team B should get to slide.

As I said in another post, this whole topic is highly politically charged. And I don't 100% believe the facts and figures presented by either side, as they both have agendas and biases they want to push.

This is a decision of a personal nature, and if that person is a minor their parents need to be involved and have a say. Some parents are shitty, no doot aboot it. But you have to give them a chance to be better.
 
It is also irrefutable that mental harm was done to some people who feel they were inappropriately pushed to elect gender transition, including surgery. "First do no harm" means not risking harm. The default position is "yes, your condition is lamentable, but it is limited to you."

Perhaps a statement of principles ought be adopted that reads out all the nonsense and harm that is packaged in with the issue.

Horseshit!

Without linking such a statement to "affirming gender identity and gender affirmation surgery" (I'll leave specifics of that issue to @rmc_wannabe, he's more knowledgeable and invested), how do you square the advancement of medical science without "risking harm"? Every time a surgeon makes that initial cut, they risk harm; nothing is 100% certain. Every time a patient study participant takes that first (or second or third or . . . ) dose of a new medication, the side effects (adverse reactions) are not 100% predetermined despite rigorous analysis and testing.

The principle to ‘first, do no harm’ is often described as the first rule of medicine and assumed by many to be in the Hippocratic Oath. But that four word phrase is not found in that oath, although to be fair, it is found in another of Hippocrates' writings called Of the Epidemics.

Is "first, do no harm" even possible?
The idea that doctors should, as a starting point, not harm their patients is an appealing one. But doesn't that set the bar rather low? Of course no physician should set out to do something that will only be accompanied by predictable and preventable harm. We don't need an ancient ancestor, however well-respected, or an oath to convince us of that!

But if physicians took "first, do no harm" literally, no one would have surgery, even if it was lifesaving. We might stop ordering mammograms, because they could lead to a biopsy for a non-cancerous lump. In fact, we might not even request blood tests — the pain, bruising, or bleeding required to draw blood are clearly avoidable harms.

How practical is "first, do no harm"?
Imagine the following situations:
  • Your diagnosis is clear — say, strep throat — and there's an effective treatment available that carries only minor risks. Here, "first, do no harm" is not particularly relevant or useful.
  • Your diagnosis isn't clear and the optimal course of testing or treatment is uncertain — for example, you have back pain or suffer from headaches. It may be impossible to accurately compare the risk and benefit tradeoffs of one particular course of action against another. So you can't tell ahead of time whether a test or treatment will "do no harm."
  • Your diagnosis is serious — for example, an inoperable cancer — and treatment can only cause harm. Here, the "first, do no harm" mandate is irrelevant again. The only reasonable course of care is to offer comfort, support, and relief of suffering. This is already a guiding principle of palliative care and is widely accepted.
The bottom line
The fact is that when difficult, real-time decisions must be made, it's hard to apply the "first, do no harm" dictum because estimates of risk and benefit are so uncertain and prone to error.

But it is a reminder that we need high-quality research to help us better understand the balance of risk and benefit for the tests and treatments we recommend. Ultimately, it is also a reminder that doctors should neither overestimate their capacity to heal, nor underestimate their capacity to cause harm.
 
I'm going to make a prediction: 20 years from now pedophilia will be a recognized sexual orientation and will be protected under human rights legislation (I'm not saying the physical act itself will be, but maybe there will be a few Charter challenges on the age of consent).
.. that won't be coming from the 2SLGBTQIA+ crowd, where adultconsent is a far more important value that within heteronormative society.

I'm sure the church, politicians, and LEOs who have a higher statistical percentage of pedophilia in their ranks would breathe a sigh of relief.

And then we will have people being canceled over old tweets they made about pedophilia. Remember, the way people feel about pedophilias is the way that people used to think about gays.

That being said, I hope I'm wrong.
Except, what two consenting adults do between them is legal and understood to be a valid expression of love.

Children cannot provide consent to adults due to the evident power imbalance that comes from age and maturity. It's why I signed the contract for a cellphone for my kid and put them on my insurance.
 
.. that won't be coming from the 2SLGBTQIA+ crowd, where adultconsent is a far more important value that within heteronormative society.

I'm sure the church, politicians, and LEOs who have a higher statistical percentage of pedophilia in their ranks would breathe a sigh of relief.


Except, what two consenting adults do between them is legal and understood to be a valid expression of love.

Children cannot provide consent to adults due to the evident power imbalance that comes from age and maturity. It's why I signed the contract for a cellphone for my kid and put them on my insurance.
I'm not saying that individuals who act on their urges won't face criminal prosecution. I'm saying that someone will be able to come out as a pedophile and will be supported by a large segment of the population.
 
I'm not saying that individuals who act on their urges won't face criminal prosecution. I'm saying that someone will be able to come out as a pedophile and will be supported by a large segment of the population.
What are you basing that off of? Are you equating that acceptance of homosexuality and sexual orientation is going to lead to societal acceptance of the sexual abuse of children?
 
Because team A did something abhorrent in the past does not mean team B should get to slide.
Accepting proven medical science to ease mental and, in some cases, physical maladities is not and will not be "giving a pass" to doctors that made the best call they had with the facs presented.

Theological quackery that uses abusive brainwashing akin to Chinese re-education camps will always be abhorrent.

As I said in another post, this whole topic is highly politically charged. And I don't 100% believe the facts and figures presented by either side, as they both have agendas and biases they want to push.
That's your call. Where my belief stands is that the option should exist for those who make the choice to transition, regardless of the "but my religious/ethical beliefs state..." crowd influencing the ability to access it. Their beliefs don't factor into a personal decision to be made by my daughter when she is ready to make it.

This is a decision of a personal nature, and if that person is a minor their parents need to be involved and have a say. Some parents are shitty, no doot aboot it. But you have to give them a chance to be better.
Until...

-the child faces intolerance, abuse, homelessness because they are Trans.

-their privacy is compromised due to a legislative body mandating their unsupportive or abusive parent be informed of their personal choices or preferences that, frankly, aren't harmful or damaging to the child

-the child prefers the 9th Floor VR from life, rather than face the prospect of living in a toxic environment with no support

Parents suck. I suck, to be frank. But I have a duty to my kid to protect her. It is a job I cannot quit and one I cannot afford to fail at. I would rather walk this road beside her than find out that she had killed herself because she felt that was a better option than telling Dad 15 years after the fact he bought the wrong colour paint for the nursery .
 
Back
Top