[znpy]

> Treating people under 18 is a politically losing issue.

This is the key point, imho.

In the transgender rights discourse no margin for error is admitted, but there is like in any other human field (of course).

There have been several cases of people being given a "gender disphoria" blanket diagnosis (eg: the case of Chlementine Breen[1]), which later caused issues. And of course some of those people are transitioning back and started doing activism against the trans rights movement.

It's weird that minors are not allowed to do something trivial as drinking a beer or driving a car yet they're allowed to take on irreversible changes (sometimes involving surgery) to their bodies.

This is hurtful to all people involved, and until this point is not understood, the attrition will continue.

[1]: that case is a textbook example of "no margin error admitted" because in order for their voice to be heard they had to resort to talking to the extreme opposite political side.

[seethedeaduu]

The convenience of a hypothetical cis peerson is worth more than the lives of 100 trans people it seems.

The wrong puberty is irreversible mutilation. It's not weird at all given that kids are being given treatment for cancer.

[znpy]

> The convenience of a hypothetical cis peerson is worth more than the lives of 100 trans people it seems.

Complete nonsense. The ratio is generally the inverse: there are 100 cis people and 1 trans person. Those are just the numbers, otherwise trans people wouldn't be a considered a minority.

Actually you're the one arguing that the convenience of one trans person is worth more than the life of 100 cis people.

[seethedeaduu]

I didn't know that the ratio of cis to trans people who were "falsely" "convinced" to take hormones were 100 to 1.

Having the right hormones and not being permenantly mutilated by the wrong ones isn't simply "a convenience".