[theprincess]

Puberty blockers have been administered as a valid treatment for precocious puberty for many decades. All of the bans on them specifically still allow them to be used for this purpose, because they are indeed safe enough. It's just that people don't like the idea of children being transgender, probably because it reminds them that they could potentially have a gay or transgender child.

The Alan Turing lie is laughable, Lupron wasn't even invented until 20+ years after Alan Turing was given hormone injections. The falsehoods you're spouting have the hallmarks of coming from Twitter infographics meant to enrage you. Trans care has been made into a wedge issue by US politicians as a way of taking advantage of people's ignorance about the topic, and their knee-jerk dislike of gender non-conformity. An incredible amount of non-sense is being spread, the same as it was about gay people in the 70's and 80's.

> In fact, "trans kids" has never been a thing until about two or three years ago.

Another blatant lie, but it's a fun opportunity to talk about the first trans kid in the US, Agnes Torres. She started taking hormone therapy as a child in 1950. Nearly 80 years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnes_Torres

Doctors declared her intersex and she was given a fast track to having her documents changed. She went on to marry and have a nice normal life, because people left her alone. Trans people today could have the same if not for the vicious ignorance propagated by political parties looking for fresh meat.

[bletchp]

> Puberty blockers have been administered as a valid treatment for precocious puberty for many decades.

That's a different treatment though, because puberty eventually resumes. Halting it entirely is more akin to the castrati children [1] who had their puberty physically blocked through removal of testicles.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castrato

[mitt_romney_12]

Puberty blockers are not permanent [1] they're taken until people start hormone therapy at which point they go through normal puberty

[1] https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/gender-dyspho...

[lockhouse]

Hormone treatments can result in permanent irreversible changes, such as sterility. Surgeries are also not completely reversible.

[sudosysgen]

Yes, the point is that you wait until the subject is sufficiently competent to be able to make those medical decisions for themselves, which in most jurisdictions is 14 to 16. The entire point of puberty blockers is to delay permanent sexual changes until the subject can make their own decisions.

[mckern]

Puberty blockers are claimed to be non-permanent. However, that can't be verified at present [0]. In light of that, such a claim being made in the first place is definitely medical malpractice of some sorts.

Also, I do not think medical sources from America are reliable for this topic. The UK and the EU have moved away from gender-affirming care and designated it an experimental treatment. Medical and psychological associations in the US have been captured by such activists and are pushing false rhetoric such as "the science is settled" and "we have medical consensus" (note the misrepresentation here; consensus does not imply evidence-based).

US have a problem where radical activists have captured many influential cultural institutions. Anyone who disagree is automatically designated a "right-winger", "conservative", "white supremacist", "oppressor", "racist", "sexist", "homophobe", "transphobe", etc. This should be obvious to anyone looking from outside the anglo-sphere. For things to get to the point where US can't even recognise what a medical scandal is is frankly appalling, especially when their counterparts in Europe is able to do so.

[0] https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2022/11/15/nyt-questions-pube...

[theprincess]

> The UK and the EU have moved away from gender-affirming care and designated it an experimental treatment.

The UK and EU are hardly a paradise for trans people. Until recently they even REQUIRED trans people to be sterilized, I suppose under the dual assumptions that 1.) they weren't fit to have children and 2.) if there's a genetic component to being transgender it's best to weed it out.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/12/world/europe/european-cou... (this was only stricken down in 2013)

These days, you'll notice a lot of europeans calling to clamp down on transgender people because they'd prefer for them to be gay. Conversion therapy is conversion therapy, however, and whether you do it US style where you try to make someone a good straight Christian or European style where you try to make them a feminine male or butch female, it's still wrong.

As for sterilization, people bring this up without pointing out that we can bank sperm and eggs. A treatment plan for trans youth can wait until they reach a tanner stage (these are the stages of puberty) where they can bank before starting puberty blockers. That is more reasonable than an outright ban.

As for Lupron's side effects, parents are informed about possible side effects. Just like with precocious puberty. It remains telling that families are allowed to access these treatments for some reasons but not others. The double standard betrays prejudice and political meddling in the affairs of parents and doctors.

[peanutcrisis]

I think the issue is more technically dubious than political. I'd refer to this investigative feature by The British Medical Journal (BMJ)[0], as well as the follow up[1] of clinicians and researchers alike.

[0] https://www.bmj.com/content/380/bmj.p382

[1] https://www.bmj.com/content/380/bmj.p382/rapid-responses

[TurkishPoptart]

>Agnes Torres

Being intersex is very rare and unfortunate, and I am sympathetic to those with such birth defects.

However, the explosion in "trans kids" has nothing to do with being intersex and has everything to do with being a mental craze. There is no explanation for feelings of "gender dysphoria" rising by 1000% among young girls except for it being a mental craze, with all the encouragement and support among themselves, in social media, and among the school administrators. [1]

[1]: https://www.amazon.com/Irreversible-Damage-Transgender-Seduc...

[theprincess]

> Being intersex is very rare and unfortunate, and I am sympathetic to those with such birth defects.

Agnes Torres was not intersex, she was merely classed as such which allowed her to live a normal life. Funny enough, your comment itself shows why this was successful. You see intersex as more legitimate and because of that you "give it a pass."

Agnes Torres was transgender, but was treated as legitimate back in the 1950's. Being treated like a normal human being allowed her to live a good life back then, free from hate.

It goes to show, if people would just allow trans people to live their lives, they could blend in with society. The thing holding them back is just... prejudice. How sad.

[peanutcrisis]

I'm not sure what the situation is like now concerning prejudice towards trans people in the US, but looking from the outside, I'm aware of the incredible amount of bad faith coming from medical and activist organisations from within the US.

For instance, any legitimate discussion or criticism about gender-affirming care, possible social cause that's driving the increase of trans-identifying teenagers (confounded by high rates of autism, mental illness, trauma), or how certain trans rights infringes on women's rights, are framed as "transphobic" by these medical and activist organisation. This would also mean that statements made by countries that are arguably more progressive than the US (i.e. UK and European countries) about the current trans issue would fall into that category as well.

Now, against the backdrop of the capture of cultural institutions by radical activists in the US who share a common foundation (critical social justice), it's hard to be sympathetic towards your claim that prejudice is what's holding them back, when the actions of the medical and activist organisations in the US is consistent with the silencing of valid criticism that other factions of the critical social justice adherents (i.e. race) have a track record of.

In other words, it's hard to believe that the medical and activist organisations in the US are actually acting in good faith; they are weaponising our empathy for marginalised groups to silence legitimate criticisms about a medical scandal and the ideological foundations driving the scandal.

Edit: Anyone of sound mind can clearly evaluate that my point isn't transphobic. The reply to this comment is a demonstration of what's wrong with the US.

[theprincess]

I think you're ideologically motivated, and arguing from a position of emotional distaste for trans people rather than unbiased concern about medical practice. Here's why:

> any legitimate discussion or criticism about gender-affirming care, possible social cause that's driving the increase of trans-identifying teenagers

Trans-identified is a term created by anti-trans activists initially as an "in joke" because calling someone a trans identified male or trans identified female created acronyms that spelled traditionally female and male names: TIM and TIF, where TIM would be applied to trans women and TIF would be applied to trans men. A group that is serious about improving the world wouldn't choose their terminology so as to make fun of or harass people. A hate group would.

> or how certain trans rights infringes on women's rights

It's not at all clear that trans rights infringe on women's rights. The right to segregate yourself from elements of the population that you find distasteful isn't guaranteed. Otherwise we'd still have Jim Crow laws in the American South and lesbians would still be barred from women's sports due to concerns about them being predatory in locker rooms - yes this was a big concern in the 1980's.

> the capture of cultural institutions by radical activists

This is conspiratorial thinking. "Institutions" are made up of individuals and operate under some guiding principles. They aren't captured like territories in a game of risk.

> This would also mean that statements made by countries that are arguably more progressive than the US (i.e. UK and European countries) about the current trans issue would fall into that category as well.

The UK and EU have different politics than the US. They are economically more egalitarian, but socially can be very conservative.

> it's hard to believe that the medical and activist organisations in the US are actually acting in good faith

Why would you conflate medical and activist organizations? Isn't it possible that you are the activist, and that you'd like to bend medical organizations to your will because they disagree with your own prejudices?

> Anyone of sound mind can clearly evaluate that my point isn't transphobic. The reply to this comment is a demonstration of what's wrong with the US.

Saying that nobody can disagree with you unless they are mentally unwell, and then calling someone who disagreed with you an example of "what's wrong with the US" is very odd behavior. It doesn't seem like the way someone operating in good faith would behave.

[mckern]

I don't appreciate your ad-hominem attacks. I'm not the "activist" you accused me of being, or the conspiracy theorist/covert "right winger" you're trying to paint me as. I clarify my position here [0].

>Saying that nobody can disagree with you unless they are mentally unwell, and then calling someone who disagreed with you an example of "what's wrong with the US" is very odd behavior. It doesn't seem like the way someone operating in good faith would behave.

I don't see how I acted in bad faith. However, it appears that your comment is an odd interpretation of the additional remarks I added to my original comment. Perhaps my command of english isn't as good as I thought (I'm not in the anglosphere), or perhaps, you're the one acting in bad faith and giving a convoluted take on my remarks. Regardless, allow me to clarify; "Feggal" replied to my original comment, accusing me of being a "transphobe" and claims that he's going to tattle to Dang for my alleged transgressions. The additional remark I added to my original comment was meant to extend the original points I made about how a particular group of ideologically motivated people are contaminating the conversation, and how "Feggal"'s ad-hominem reply is an example of that. I hope this clarifies things.

Lastly, I'm not interested in entertaining any more ad-hominem attacks. For anyone reading this thread, allow me to point you to this investigative feature by the British Medical Journal (BMJ)[1], one of the most reputable journals in medicine alongside The Lancet. You figure out the discrepancy in claims between the BMJ and that of the medical associations and activist organisations in the US, and decide which of the both is the conspiratorial one.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36684221

[1] https://www.bmj.com/content/380/bmj.p382

[test098]

> However, the explosion in "trans kids" has nothing to do with being intersex and has everything to do with being a mental craze

what "explosion"? the only explosion is the right wing suddenly realizing trans people exist and turning it into a political issue.

have you considered that the reason you're seeing more about "trans kids" or people being more open about gender dysphoria because it's more socially acceptable to be LGBTQ than it was 50 years ago? or maybe because right wing outrage is profitable?

[tinus_hn]

> It's just that people don't like the idea of children being transgender, probably because it reminds them that they could potentially have a gay or transgender child.

A shallow dismissal, a perfectly reasonable argument against irreversible action for changing children’s genders is that many of them aren’t so sure as it seems and later want to transition back.

[theprincess]

> A shallow dismissal, a perfectly reasonable argument against irreversible action for changing children’s genders is that many of them aren’t so sure as it seems and later want to transition back.

About 2% want to transition back. 98% are quite sure, and are happy with being treated. Trans youth who are not treated tend to be miserable as adults, with many committing suicide since their bodies have been shaped by the puberty of their natal sex in such a way as to draw constant negative attention. While it is very reasonable to want to lower that 2% rate down even further, attempting to rip care away from that other 98% is not reasonable. Just prejudice, masquerading as concern for children, same as the 80's when "save the children" was having a national campaign against homosexual rights.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S188898912...

[peanutcrisis]

If you're not ideologically invested in this topic and are sincerely interested in the truth, I'd urge you to look at your own country from an outsider's point of view. The point being, many sources in the US that were reputable (i.e. scientific american) are parroting misinformation about this topic in service of ideology. That much is obvious to someone who does not live in the anglo-sphere. To address your claims, I'd recommend you check out Hannah Barnes' book, "Time to Think". This much should show that the study you're relying on is dubious, and transitively, your rhetoric.

[theprincess]

> If you're not ideologically invested in this topic and are sincerely interested in the truth, I'd urge you to look at your own country from an outsider's point of view. The point being, many sources in the US that were reputable (i.e. scientific american) are parroting misinformation about this topic in service of ideology.

You've really been running wild in this comments section, as have I. I can see that we're both very interested in this topic, but from different sides.

What I'll point out here again, is that you continue to paint reputable organizations that disagree with you as "ideological" while maintaining yourself as some sort of unbiased outside observer. This is blatantly untrue.

You are the one trying to change the facts being reported by reputable sources. You are the activist who is engaged in a campaign of attempting to ideologically modify unbiased institutions.

I think the trans topic can really rile people up, and there's no shortage of think pieces of conspiracy theories about it. Same as has existed around lots of minority groups that caught the attention and ire of the larger public.

You aren't the unbiased observer however. You are an activist, and it shows in your writing.

[mckern]

I don't appreciate your ad-hominem attacks. I spent two years outside of the US witnessing the idiocy of Trump, and another three witnessing the idiocy and regressiveness of the "progressives". As such, I don't take sides in your politics; both your left and right are a disaster to me.

I am not an activist, but I do care about causes that most on the left would empathise with, which is ironic given that gender-affirming care is one heralded by the "progressives" on the left. To the best of my ability, my commitment is to reason, which is something the right clearly lacked during (and after) the Trump administration, and something the left has been lacking for quite some time now.

This much should establish that I'm not some garden-variety "right-winger". Now that signalling my "creds" is out of the way (and it should never have mattered anyway), I think I have a unique perspective as an outsider. Because I have no commitment to US' abysmal politics and since I am not in the anglosphere, I'm not immersed in the local narratives that are happening on the ground. This lets me compare (much fairly) the US and UK + EU's approach to gender-affirming care, and how it's reported. So perhaps while I'm not an unbiased observer as you would put it (I have an opinion on this matter), I do think I've a much better view of what's going on than someone in a country who's narratives are dominated by their political extremes.

So here you are, making a bunch of accusations about me which you can't even bother to back up. To counter that, here's something of substance; for those who think there are no credible claims to the contrary, you can check out this investigative feature by the British Medical Journal (BMJ)[0], one of the most reputable journals in medicine alongside The Lancet.

[0] https://www.bmj.com/content/380/bmj.p382

[TurkishPoptart]

Thanks for bringing this to attention. This book review seems like a good place to start: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/feb/19/time-to-think-...

[peanutcrisis]

Indeed. The Guardian is a source I consider to be fairly ideological on certain topics, and belongs to the camp that would largely be in support of gender-affirming care. Yet despite their bias, even they gave a decent review of the book.

For those who are earnest about understanding what's up, the last thing you should do when evaluating the comments of a particularly politicised topic is to automatically deem a downvoted comment as being on the "wrong" side. This is how you inherit opinions that you were never truly convinced of in the first place. Always go to the original sources, and given how politicised this is in the US, it's ideal to see how the UK and EU are handling this. It can't harm to look outside of the bubble you're in, you own your opinions afterall.

[tinus_hn]

Even assuming your study is true, the argument against irreversibly treating children is still a reasonable position and not the shallowly insulting straw man argument you present as the only option.

[theprincess]

> the argument against irreversibly treating children is still a reasonable position

Allowing a trans child to go through their natal puberty is not a neutral act. A trans person who "passes" has a much better lifetime outcome thanks to facing less discrimination and having less body image issues (not many people living as females would enjoy being called a man in a dress and harassed regularly based on their body proportions regardless of their chromosomes).

> and not the shallowly insulting straw man argument you present as the only option.

It's not a shallow straw man. Anti-trans activists want to ban care for trans people outright. They want conversion therapy - or what they have slickly labled "gender exploratory therapy" - to be the only treatment available.

If we hadn't lived through many decades where such treatment was already the only option and seen how disastrous it was I may be less inclined to say they are acting in bad faith, but, alas, we know exactly what conversion therapy does: it creates incredibly traumatized adults who are still trans.

[tinus_hn]

All your arguments do not change the fact that it is still possible for reasonable people to simply disagree with you, and it is not a valid argument to put up straw men to take down, just like you’re doing again here, this time anyone against irreversible actions taken on children is claimed to be someone who ‘wants to ban care for trans people outright’.

If your arguments consist of assigning outrageous opinions to people you disagree with, your argument is invalid and you’re bound to be wrong.