[froh]

again: this is not the norm and not recommended practice. so you are reiterating the exceptional, pathological outlier corner case of medical malpractice.

and you do that in a context which uses this strawman to "justify" hindering and prohibiting well established treatment for severe and medically diagnosed adolescent gender dysphoria, specifically puberty blockers and after a sufficient period of time also cross gender hormones.

and adolescents can consent to that, yes.

why do you argue against this medical best practice like you do?

[dinkly]

Are you aware that shortly after the initial publication of SOC8, WPATH issued a set of changes which removed all lower age limits that were previously recommended, including for irreversible surgeries?

See https://web.archive.org/web/20220919141138/https://www.tandf... for the detail of their correction notice.

[froh]

glad you're bringing this up

the wpath soc is a very accessible document with a very nuanced and careful approach to treatment of adolescents and children, it explicitly deals with the potential fragility of such decisions - and the cases which are very stable early on and benefit from early access, and how to discern them.

they didn't take out the brains or caution. they just took out the inflexible and useless rigid age barriers.

its really worth a read, chapter 6 is the one relevant here

https://www.wpath.org/publications/soc

[dinkly]

They took out the age limits because they wanted to reduce the risk of those who follow their guidelines being taken to court for malpractice. This is about protecting their own practitioners, not about providing the best care to patients.

See this video of the conference where this was revealed: https://twitter.com/SwipeWright/status/1571999221401948161

These people are harming young children who can't meaningfully consent to such irreversible treatments. And then hiding behind these guidelines so they don't get sued. It's sickening.

[froh]

they need to protect themselves from the sickening legislation which is threatening medical practitioners with litigation.

religious worldviews drive a legislation to "eradicate transgenders".

the wpath requests a multimodal treatment team to support medical interventions with lasting effects, and the consent of caretakers / parents (unless it's harmful to the dependent adolescent) and age appropriate consent and no measures they are unfit to consent to.

all protection that's needed is in place.

what your attitude is doing is it's forcing gender dysphoric youths to go through the irreversible body changes induced by their puberty.

why? how does getting a beritone voice and a quarterback frame help a trans girl?

how do breasts and a small feminine silhouette help a trans man?

[dinkly]

No, they're protecting their members from being sued, as that video revealed.

The "trans child" is a medically and politically constructed entity, that has arisen from the rhetoric of activists. Children cannot meaningfully consent to these "gender affirming" medical interventions that will scar them for life, make them infertile and lose sexual function, and have an impact far beyond anything they can comprehend.

[froh]

I think you've made your point clear and I think you are not open to have your view changed.

I personally know trans people, living happy lives 20+ years into their transition, and all of them knew early on, and all of them had benefitted from and wished for much earlier access to gender affirming healthcare and back in the days early access simply did not exist, because of the FUD and pseudo protective position you propagate.

my thoughts and prayers go out to you.