[0xy]

The ethics of using risky dangerous drugs on children (who grow out of GD over 50% of the time) is pretty clear cut to me.

You risk permanent bone damage for the minority of cases where it has some advantages? The "advantages" are apparently easier transgender surgery, which in its current form is essentially a disaster. The operation is brutal and the results are rarely good. The majority of the time there are serious, life-changing consequences. All this risk for something that I think even transgender people would agree isn't there yet in terms of utility nor aesthetics.

After all that, the suicidality of transgender people post-operation is virtually the same as pre-operation.

For those reasons, I find it extremely hard to support the use of risky drugs and a very rocky pathway for children who have GD. The fact transgender people tend to ignore these risks, paper over them and encourage questioning people onto this path isn't a good look.

The drugs are dangerous, irreversible and have a very questionable upside. Full stop.

[pseudalopex]

Almost certainly your desistance statistic comes from studies including children who didn't meet the criteria for gender dysphoria.[1]

Puberty blockers have been prescribed for early onset puberty for over 30 years. Their primary effects reverse naturally after treatment stops. Studies found they affect bone density temporarily when used for early onset puberty. And not dangerously. Trans patients tend to take them longer though. At least 1 study found their bones don't recover as quickly. It wasn't set up to prove or disprove a permanent residual effect.[2] But even during treatment the effect doesn't reach dangerous levels for most patients. And the risk is easy to mitigate with monitoring, supplements, and exercise.

The advantages of puberty blockers are avoiding various surgeries and their risks, better results in some ways, and avoiding a distressing transformation the patient isn't allowed to do anything else about. That distress breaks some people.

"After adjustment for sociodemographic factors and exposure to other types of gender-affirming care, undergoing 1 or more types of gender-affirming surgery was associated with lower past-month psychological distress (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.58; 95% CI, 0.50-0.67; P < .001), past-year smoking (aOR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.57-0.75; P < .001), and past-year suicidal ideation (aOR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.50-0.64; P < .001)."[3]

Trans people would like better surgical options of course. You don't speak for them in calling present surgeries a disaster.

What does any of this have to do with Dave Chappelle making jokes at trans people's expense?

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27757484

[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5290172/

[3] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamasurgery/article-abstrac...

[0xy]

>Their primary effects reverse naturally after treatment stops

Absolute fabrication, and a dangerous one at that. Bone density loss is permanent, and there are numerous documented cases of fracturing, broken bones and otherwise -- including from pro-transgender clinics. [1]

This is what I mean when I criticize the community for papering over serious dangers. Your words are reckless and dangerous.

>That distress breaks some people

Given the suicidality evidence, there's precisely zero proof that transgender surgeries benefit people at all, considering the rate of suicide post-operation is substantially higher than a normal person, and virtually unchanged from pre-operation.

This means that those surgeries offer no benefits for suicidal behavior whatsoever. The other "benefits" appear to be subjective? How are they "not broken" if they're dead from suicide? Serious question, because nobody ever seems to be able to tell me why these surgeries are a benefit given the grim statistics.

>You don't speak for them in calling present surgeries a disaster.

I never put words in their mouths, I simply read the mountains of evidence in their own communities, and from their own advocacy groups. [2]

Have you seen the results first hand enough to say that I'm wrong? Some of these surgeries are legitimately disasters. I mean permanent damage and zero functional use, with lifelong ramifications (daily upkeep, multiple corrective surgeries, serious problems with basic functions etc).

>What does any of this have to do with Dave Chappelle making jokes at trans people's expense?

If you watched his show, you would've noted that he was making jokes about them because they cannot take a joke like most people can. They cannot even take reasonable debate.

J.K. Rowling posts an opinion they don't like and thousands of them bombard her with death threats, hateful vitriol and otherwise.

Why can't they take a joke? Gay people can take a joke. Black people can take a joke. White people can take a joke. That's his point.

[1] https://segm.org/the_effect_of_puberty_blockers_on_the_accru...

[2] https://old.reddit.com/r/Transgender_Surgeries

[DanBC]

Most of the points you're making have been robustly debunked by actual science, which is I guess why you're not quoting anything from a credible source.

Your bone density argument is particularly stupid, and you don't appear to realise that you're waving a big red flag. Anyone with any knowledge about this knows the study you're referring to (but that you haven't read and haven't linked to), and knows the more recent studies that overturn those results (and you don't even know those studies exist, because you're getting your information from very selective sources).

Correlation isn't causation, and that's important for PBs and bone density because we know trans teens can have lower bone density even when they've never had PBs.