American Academy of Pediatrics will review treatment guidelines for transgender minors

[Harry T. Clark]

Society doesn't let children do a lot of things because they aren't mature enough to know what they want.  This should be applicable to those who claim to be transgender.  Let it be for now and when you are an adult, if you still want to transition, then by all means do what you wish.  But as a child, no, they don't know what they want.  One of my sons when he was three liked to put on a cinderella dress that was at the church nursery.  However, this was a phase that soon ended.  Should I have given him puberty blockers?  He seems to be all boy now, only interested in sports.  But, what does he really want?  Maybe I should take him to a psychologist to tease out what he was expressing at three?  Is there an inner girl that was killed by stereotypes foisted on him? Seems ludicrous to me to go down this path when people and children are easily manipulated one way or another.  First, do no harm seems to be the better approach.

I have another son in high school that probably wants to start having sex.  I'm sure he'd like to identify as a sexually active young man and who am I to stop his identity?  Should I encourage him to follow his desires? 

Seems ridiculous to allow permanent changes when children aren't mature enough to even know who they are.  But, this is probably a dangerous idea given where society is going.

[LoudmouthMormon]

On 8/4/2023 at 2:23 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

Surgery as transgender care for minors, is relatively rare, and of those, the huge majority are mastectomies. The statistics that I have access to show less than 20 genital surgeries per year for minors in the U.S. Most transgender care for minors is not medically invasive. This figure is dwarfed by the number of medical interventions performed each year on new born infants.

Context and perspective are both important.   

Somewhere between 0.05-1.6% of the US population identify as trans.  Said one way, "almost nobody is trans in the US."  Said another way, "over one and a half million people identify as trans in the US."

Young folks identify at higher rates than adults.  Lots of arguing about why.  Are the adults set in their ways and not open to change?  Are kids more easily swayed by cultural winds?  Are schools making it safe for trans youth to identify early in life, while adults faced oppression if they had tried it as kids?  Are schools pushing a new narrative glorifying the TQ+ end of the LGBTQ+, which leads kids to use their overactive imaginations to come to identify as trans, similar to how kids will say "I'm an astronaut" or "I'm a basketball star"?

Different states have different rates.  Washington, DC, has the highest percentage at 2.77. Montana, North Dakota, Iowa, Wyoming, and South Dakota have the lowest, at 0.3% each.  Again, lots of arguing about why. 

Also, there's a thing called "Detransitioning".   This is when someone identifies as trans, and then later changes their mind.  They de-transition.  "How many?" is another hot-button much-argued number.  One much criticized study said 80% of kids do not persist in their claims of being trans.  Countries do different studies and release different findings.  .5%?  8%?  80%?  There's so much bias, so many conflicting studies out there, you can pretty much pick a rate you want, and go find some study that supports it.

 

So yes, surgery as transgender care for minors is "relatively" rare, in that almost nobody is trans, and not many trans are children, and hardly any trans children get surgery.  Or put another way, a million people in the US are trans, and maybe 1/4 to 1/3 are kids, and maybe hundreds to thousands of those kids have had gender confirming surgery, and most of those are girls having their breasts removed.  Your daughter is more likely to be hit by lightning, than get a trans-affirming mastectomy. 

If you want to be like TheNehor and claim the whole thing is an overblown right-wing scare tactic, you might want to compare and contrast with America's history with the frontal lobotomy.  We used to do it, we found out how horribly barbaric it was, and we stopped doing it, and nobody does it any more.  It was a chapter of history where a medical fad actually won the guy a Nobel Prize, and then we did some more research and said "oops never mind".  Well, in the 1950's, there were maybe 150,000,000 people, and we did maybe 50,000 lobotomies, meaning the US lobotomized maybe 0.0003 of our population.  .3 for every 1000 people.  Again, people in the '50's were more likely to be hit by lightning, than get a frontal lobotomy.  It began falling out of favor in the US after the publicized case of John F. Kennedy's younger sister Rosemary had a lobotomy in 1941 to treat seizures and extreme shifts in mood.  She lost her ability to walk or talk, her personality was permanently altered, and she was permanently disabled.  

Now we have a growing number of detransitioners like Chloe Cole, upset that they've been turned into lifelong medical patients after hormones and surgery while they were minors.  She says her parents went along with it after being told "you can either have a living son or a dead daughter" by her doctor.  She knew after getting off the operating table she made a mistake.  She mourns the loss of her breasts.  She worries about her odds of being permanently infertile because of the hormone treatments.  Every week there's another 2 or 3 like her going public.  

 

Sometimes humans take a while before making the right decision.  "Believe children and provide gender affirming care upon request, because they'll kill themselves if we withhold treatment" sounded like the right decision to some, but is it really the right decision?  Yes indeed, I look forward to this systematic review, to see if the AAP revises their guidelines. 

 

Again, I'm taking bets.   See the first post of this thread if you think you can make an easy ten bucks.

Edited August 5 by LoudmouthMormon

[The Nehor]

10 hours ago, Thinking said:

You do realize that you just quoted the Onion?

Very much so. It is one of their best satire pieces.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Harry T. Clark said:

Society doesn't let children do a lot of things because they aren't mature enough to know what they want.  This should be applicable to those who claim to be transgender.  Let it be for now and when you are an adult, if you still want to transition, then by all means do what you wish.  But as a child, no, they don't know what they want.  One of my sons when he was three liked to put on a cinderella dress that was at the church nursery.  However, this was a phase that soon ended.  Should I have given him puberty blockers?  He seems to be all boy now, only interested in sports.  But, what does he really want?  Maybe I should take him to a psychologist to tease out what he was expressing at three?  Is there an inner girl that was killed by stereotypes foisted on him? Seems ludicrous to me to go down this path when people and children are easily manipulated one way or another.  First, do no harm seems to be the better approach.

I have another son in high school that probably wants to start having sex.  I'm sure he'd like to identify as a sexually active young man and who am I to stop his identity?  Should I encourage him to follow his desires? 

Seems ridiculous to allow permanent changes when children aren't mature enough to even know who they are.  But, this is probably a dangerous idea given where society is going.

The three year old wearing a dress isn't going to be put on puberty blockers. This is a strawman argument.

From the Onion article:

Quote

 

“Quentin” is a 14-year-old assigned female at birth who now identifies as male against the wishes of his parents. His transition was supported by one of his unmarried teachers, who is not a virgin. He stole his parents’ car and drove to the hospital, where a doctor immediately began performing top surgery on him. Afterward, driving home drunk from the hospital, Quentin became suicidally depressed, and he wonders now, homeless and ridden with gonorrhea, if transitioning was a mistake.

We just made Quentin up, and that’s okay. It doesn’t mean stories like his aren’t potentially happening everywhere, constantly. Good journalism is about finding those stories, even when they don’t exist. It’s about asking the tough questions and ignoring the answers you don’t like, then offering misleading evidence in service of preordained editorial conclusions. In our case, endangering trans people is the lodestar that shapes our coverage. Frankly, if our work isn’t putting trans people further at risk of trauma and violence, we consider it a failure.

 

No one is saying a three year old boy wanting to try on a dress means anything so you are fighting a myth. Most pro-transgender people in general are supportive of any guy who wants to wear a dress to do so at any age and it doesn't mean they have dysphoria.

Quote

He seems to be all boy now, only interested in sports.

So if it was a daughter that liked sports you would worry they were transgender?

Sarcasm: Also aren't you worried your son will want to transition so they can win at all the girl's sports? I remember that was a horrific threat at one point.

Quote

But, what does he really want?  Maybe I should take him to a psychologist to tease out what he was expressing at three?  Is there an inner girl that was killed by stereotypes foisted on him?

If there were there would be a lot of pain going on. Transgender people don't make these decisions on a whim. They usually spend years fighting them and hiding them.

Quote

Seems ludicrous to me to go down this path when people and children are easily manipulated one way or another.  First, do no harm seems to be the better approach.

True, you were easily manipulated into believing that three year old kids that wear a dress once are going to be given puberty blockers. Maybe you should be more dubious of the propaganda you're reading.

Also unaddressed gender dysphoria does all kinds of harm. The idea that denying gender-affirming care has no downsides is just plain wrong.

[The Nehor]

8 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Also, there's a thing called "Detransitioning".   This is when someone identifies as trans, and then later changes their mind.  They de-transition.  "How many?" is another hot-button much-argued number.  One much criticized study said 80% of kids do not persist in their claims of being trans.  Countries do different studies and release different findings.  .5%?  8%?  80%?  There's so much bias, so many conflicting studies out there, you can pretty much pick a rate you want, and go find some study that supports it.

Wrong. Detransitioning is not usually done because someone changed their mind. It can happen for all kinds of reasons. The problem is that unless you filter detransitioning by reason the numbers vary wildly.

If you assume that anyone who ever detransitions regretted their decision then it is easy to come to the conclusion that many if not most people regret it. Detransitioning can mean you stop taking hormones. You might do this because you lost your insurance or because you are around unsupportive family or because you are battling your insurance company or you move and can't find a doctor willing to treat dysphoria after your move or lots of other reasons.

Some 'completely' detransitioning but regretting it is a statistically low reason for doing it. Social ostracism is many times more likely to be the reason.

Quote

If you want to be like TheNehor and claim the whole thing is an overblown right-wing scare tactic, you might want to compare and contrast with America's history with the frontal lobotomy.  We used to do it, we found out how horribly barbaric it was, and we stopped doing it, and nobody does it any more.  It was a chapter of history where a medical fad actually won the guy a Nobel Prize, and then we did some more research and said "oops never mind".  Well, in the 1950's, there were maybe 150,000,000 people, and we did maybe 50,000 lobotomies, meaning the US lobotomized maybe 0.0003 of our population.  .3 for every 1000 people.  Again, people in the '50's were more likely to be hit by lightning, than get a frontal lobotomy.  It began falling out of favor in the US after the publicized case of John F. Kennedy's younger sister Rosemary had a lobotomy in 1941 to treat seizures and extreme shifts in mood.  She lost her ability to walk or talk, her personality was permanently altered, and she was permanently disabled. 

How many frontal lobotomy patients are grateful they got one and report vastly improved mental and emotional health? That is not comparable.

 

Also why are we not focusing on people like Ms. Shupe. You know, all the people who became a darling of the left as an emblem of the transgender movement and then detransitioned and became a darling of the Right and then later re-transitioned?

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/16/us/politics/transgender-care-detransitioners.html

It is telling that when anti-transgender bills are being testified about the anti-transgender movement tends to fly in people from the same small group of people who detransitioned while those who oppose the bills can easily find local people to testify.

Edited August 6 by The Nehor

[Benjamin McGuire]

2 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Sometimes humans take a while before making the right decision.  "Believe children and provide gender affirming care upon request, because they'll kill themselves if we withhold treatment" sounded like the right decision to some, but is it really the right decision?  Yes indeed, I look forward to this systematic review, to see if the AAP revises their guidelines. 

I think that you have issues. It is clear to me that you are spitting out a lot of propaganda about things that you seem to know absolutely nothing about.

A better question is this - if we are concerned about children making decisions about these kinds of issues, then why is it that we deem it acceptable to have thousands of newborns each year experiencing medically invasive surgical procedures to define their biological identity? Do they have a choice? Is there any harm in waiting, when those decisions could be made later in life?

There is no question in my mind that there is an inconsistency on the part of the current conservative perspective in our country over the idea of parental rights. The inconsistency is that it is okay for parents to decide what is best for their children only when it meets that conservative ideological position, and it is a horrible thing when it doesn't. The level of hypocrisy in this is amazing.

Let's also not forget that the Proclamation on the Family tells us that Gender is an eternal characteristic - that we had a gender in the pre-existence. If this is a true principle, then it means that gender is something that is completely independent of biological sex. The LDS Church is struggling to come to terms with this idea theologically. Why? Because the Church is so vested in the idea of an immutable gender identified entirely by biological sex. If we can accept even for a moment that sometimes (either because of genetics or because of a mistake made by some doctor who assigned the wrong biological sex to a new-born infant) we have people who experience a mismatch between their biological sex and their eternal gender, then we have to accept the reality that the Church isn't defining its members by their eternal gender but only by their biological sex. (I also want to point out that I think there is an almost certainty to the premise that the Church has ordained biological males who are eternally gendered females to the priesthood, or has sealed same-eternal-gendered couples together).

I have several family members who are (or who have) transitioned in various ways. One reason that is obvious to anyone who has dealt with this issue over the past several decades (and I mean dealt with it either by experiencing gender dysphoria themselves or who has a close friend or relative who has) is the simple fact that thirty years ago, the stigma against it was much, much higher than it is today. This is one of the reasons why young people transition more frequently than older people - it is an expected outcome, not some statistic to wonder about.

I don't disagree with the idea that some diagnostic rigor is important - especially for surgical interventions. But it isn't clear that this isn't happening already for the most part. I am not interested in the bet - that is just posturing - whether or not you are willing to put up is irrelevant. $10 won't even buy me a decent breakfast ... The fascinating thing to me is that social change is happening in ways that we did not predict. Back in the early 90s, when I got married and started my own family, I told my wife that I didn't expect to see same-sex marriage in my lifetime. Here we are. We can ask for better descriptions and better diagnostic tools without trying to make the claim (as you are doing here - at least implicitly) that there is no reason for individuals to transition at all. Back then, the Church refused to recognize that same-sex attraction was a natural thing for many. A decade later, they formally acknowledged this was the case. So in a few more years, once we understand all of this a bit better, I suspect that even the Church will be moving to come to terms with the idea.

[provoman]

On 8/3/2023 at 6:50 PM, The Nehor said:

The only problem with those claims about how Europe is going the other way is that it is largely bull*!%*. A big lie that is being repeated again and again.

There are no big comprehensive studies based on evidence backing this argument. The nations that are cherry-picked are not generally reversing a previously more liberal policy. They were always more restrictive about youth transgender care than the US. The UK in particular (colloquially referred to as TERF island by some transgender people) has never been a bastion of allowing youth access to transgender care.

When you trace the source of these misrepresentations and lies the sources are virtually all anti-transgender activists who want all these procedures banned for everyone including adults. So of course they pretend it is “for the children”. This is built up on the right-wing worldview that Europe is a bunch of leftist socialists since that is the line they have been feeding from their propaganda outlets for years.

I never thought I would see so many on the Right become Russophiles. Now they are going to take medical advice from nations with socialized medicine? Things are so very weird.

And yes, there is a real good faith discussion to be had about when and how youth transgender care can and should operate but it is never going to be had with the people who spew this propaganda and probably will never be had at all with this much poison in the discussion.

 

On a personal note please leave my transgender friends alone. Their lives are hard enough without being the target of the latest manufactured moral panic.

https://www.theonion.com/it-is-journalism-s-sacred-duty-to-endanger-the-lives-of-1850126997

 

Could you provide links to sources that have reviewed the information relied on by the UK and Sweden?  Not looking to argue about any of it here.

If I recall correctly, the UK issued its guidance the same day that some entity in the US went opposite direction of the UK.

 

[provoman]

On 8/4/2023 at 12:11 PM, The Nehor said:

It is not a dismissal. It is a call for a sense of proportion.

Listen to them and take them seriously but seeing them as a reason that we have to further roadblock people seeking gender-affirming care is insanity. Most of the people who seek out this care find it improves their lives. Most of those who detransition do so due to lack of access to medical care for various reasons or due to social pressure. The number who regret transitioning is reliably under 3%.

 This is a curious situation, don't we as a society - in the US - establish rules/laws/regulations based on similar or lower percentages? 

[Harry T. Clark]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The three year old wearing a dress isn't going to be put on puberty blockers. This is a strawman argument.

From the Onion article:

No one is saying a three year old boy wanting to try on a dress means anything so you are fighting a myth. Most pro-transgender people in general are supportive of any guy who wants to wear a dress to do so at any age and it doesn't mean they have dysphoria.

So if it was a daughter that liked sports you would worry they were transgender?

Sarcasm: Also aren't you worried your son will want to transition so they can win at all the girl's sports? I remember that was a horrific threat at one point.

If there were there would be a lot of pain going on. Transgender people don't make these decisions on a whim. They usually spend years fighting them and hiding them.

True, you were easily manipulated into believing that three year old kids that wear a dress once are going to be given puberty blockers. Maybe you should be more dubious of the propaganda you're reading.

Also unaddressed gender dysphoria does all kinds of harm. The idea that denying gender-affirming care has no downsides is just plain wrong.

You don't have kids, right? 

Is it allowed to have laws that ask children to wait until adulthood to make these decisions?

Should someone's daughter get married at 13?  What if she identified as a married person and wanted to start that life immediately to some 60 yr old?  Wouldn't you prohibit that for kids?  What if someone's son wanted to marry at 13?  I can anticipate your answer to these questions because they stand for the proposition that society actually prohibits certain things because children are too young to make these decisions.   

The issue is whether we are forcing something on kids that we shouldn't.  Kids aren't ready to make these life lasting decisions.  As a parent, I think it is better policy to wait until kids can make their own rational decisions.  I don't think you understand this.  

[LoudmouthMormon]

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Let's also not forget that the Proclamation on the Family tells us that Gender is an eternal characteristic - that we had a gender in the pre-existence. If this is a true principle, then it means that gender is something that is completely independent of biological sex.

Could you clarify why you think the word "completely" belongs in that claim?

With almost* everybody on earth, almost* without exception, seeing absolutely zero disconnect between their biological sense and their sense of gender, how can anyone credibly claim "gender is something that is completely independent of biological sex"?

 

 

* Again, "almost" and "millions upon millions of humans" mean exactly the same thing in this context.   On a planet with 9 billion people and perhaps ~10 million trans folks, give or take, that means around one-tenth of one percent of the humans are this way.  If that's not "almost nobody", then what is?

 

 

[Calm]

I am reading Ben as saying gender is completely independent of biological sex, not biological sex is necessarily completely independent of gender…because we existed as spirits eons before receiving bodies that possess biological sex characteristics. Gender is therefore not determined by our biology since it existed in the absence of biology. 

Edited August 5 by Calm

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, provoman said:

Could you provide links to sources that have reviewed the information relied on by the UK and Sweden?  Not looking to argue about any of it here.

If I recall correctly, the UK issued its guidance the same day that some entity in the US went opposite direction of the UK.

 

I don’t have time to do a hunt but here is one write up with links about some European nations.

https://www.assignedmedia.org/breaking-news/gender-affirming-care-europe

Edited August 5 by The Nehor

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, provoman said:

 This is a curious situation, don't we as a society - in the US - establish rules/laws/regulations based on similar or lower percentages? 

Yes, in the sense that we do a risk vs. benefit breakdown.

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I don’t have time to do a hunt but here is one write up with links about some European nations.

Link is missing

[The Nehor]

55 minutes ago, Harry T. Clark said:

You don't have kids, right? 

Is it allowed to have laws that ask children to wait until adulthood to make these decisions?

Is it allowed? What?

56 minutes ago, Harry T. Clark said:

Should someone's daughter get married at 13?  What if she identified as a married person and wanted to start that life immediately to some 60 yr old?  Wouldn't you prohibit that for kids?  What if someone's son wanted to marry at 13?  I can anticipate your answer to these questions because they stand for the proposition that society actually prohibits certain things because children are too young to make these decisions.   

Are you aware there are US states where teenagers can legally marry at 14?

1 hour ago, Harry T. Clark said:

The issue is whether we are forcing something on kids that we shouldn't.  Kids aren't ready to make these life lasting decisions.  As a parent, I think it is better policy to wait until kids can make their own rational decisions.  I don't think you understand this.  

Where are all these situations where parents are forcing kids to get gender-affirming surgeries?

Are you consistent on this belief that all important decisions should wait until 18? Including things like baptism?

It is worth noting that in general transgender surgeries are postponed until the person is of age. There are exceptions but they are not the norm.

[The Nehor]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Link is missing

Don’t know how it vanished. Fixed.

[Benjamin McGuire]

37 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Could you clarify why you think the word "completely" belongs in that claim?

"gender is something that is completely independent of biological sex."

Let's start with the lowest hanging fruit.

All spirits in the pre-existence had a gender (so says the proclamation on the family). This includes Lucifer and all of the spirit children of God who followed Lucifer. All of these spirits have a gender (according to the Proclamation). None of them will ever have a biological sex (according to LDS theology). Thus, gender is completely independent of biological sex. The reverse may not be true.

[pogi]

 

9 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

If you want to be like TheNehor and claim the whole thing is an overblown right-wing scare tactic, you might want to compare and contrast with America's history with the frontal lobotomy.  We used to do it, we found out how horribly barbaric it was, and we stopped doing it, and nobody does it any more.  It was a chapter of history where a medical fad actually won the guy a Nobel Prize, and then we did some more research and said "oops never mind".  Well, in the 1950's, there were maybe 150,000,000 people, and we did maybe 50,000 lobotomies, meaning the US lobotomized maybe 0.0003 of our population.  .3 for every 1000 people.  Again, people in the '50's were more likely to be hit by lightning, than get a frontal lobotomy.  It began falling out of favor in the US after the publicized case of John F. Kennedy's younger sister Rosemary had a lobotomy in 1941 to treat seizures and extreme shifts in mood.  She lost her ability to walk or talk, her personality was permanently altered, and she was permanently disabled.  

The frontal lobotomy "fad" ended because it was reliably demonstrated that the risks far outweighed any potential benefits that some received.  This became undeniable. 

Unless you have data to show that the risks outweigh benefits for each and every type of medical intervention dealing with transitioning, then yes, this is all just fear and hysteria as there is no reliable data showing that the risks outweigh the benefits in the same way that lobotomies did.     Until we have comparable hard data, then your comparison is based on nothing but fear. 

9 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Now we have a growing number of detransitioners like Chloe Cole, upset that they've been turned into lifelong medical patients after hormones and surgery while they were minors.  She says her parents went along with it after being told "you can either have a living son or a dead daughter" by her doctor.  She knew after getting off the operating table she made a mistake.  She mourns the loss of her breasts.  She worries about her odds of being permanently infertile because of the hormone treatments.  Every week there's another 2 or 3 like her going public.  

Anecdotal evidence mostly shows up in scare tactics and is less helpful in determining overall risk vs. benefits.  It is often used to persuade people by using fear while ignoring the bigger picture of statistical benefits and risks. 

According to one review of 27 studies and around 8,000 transgender surgeries, there was only 1% who regretted their gender affirming surgery (GAS).  Of course every study has limitations and I fully support the further and deeper dive into understanding the more comprehensive risks vs benefits analysis which should also include medical risk and not just psychological.  I think special precautions should be taken for youth, and I think the least invasive measures should always be considered first.  Compare those numbers to cosmetic surgery, where one report suggest that 65% regret their decisions to have surgery, and some 20% of women have their breast implants removed within 10 years of surgery.  Even with knee replacement surgeries, there is a dissatisfactory rate between 6% and 30%.   Hmmm...where is all the hysteria over those numbers? Why aren't people freaking out and trying to ban cosmetic surgeries, breast augmentation, and knee replacement surgeries? These happen at FAR higher rates than GAS procedures with FAR worse psychological results! Why are transgender transitions FAR more satisfied with their surgeries than those who undergo these other types of common surgeries? That is something that needs to be seriously considered   Could it be perhaps because their desire to transition is not some superficial and transient whim based on social media peer pressure to be cool, or however the right spins it?  Can and should we do more to screen to prevent that 1% from undergoing surgery, I think so.  But these fear tactics of comparing it to lobotomies without data to support it, is really annoying.  Lets wait for the data. 

9 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Yes indeed, I look forward to this systematic review, to see if the AAP revises their guidelines. 

Me too.  I am hopeful that they offer new guidelines to screen out that 1% who regret their decisions.  

9 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Again, I'm taking bets.   See the first post of this thread if you think you can make an easy ten bucks.

What exactly is the bet?  Is the bet that more stringent screening practices will be recommended?  I think that is a guarantee as that is kind of the point, to improve and implement better practices and reduce risk.  If no improvements are recommended, then the process would be a complete fail!  You know for a fact they aren't going to allow themselves to look like failures and find zero room for improvement.  Of course they will find some process to improve as they seek to outline best practices.  I think we all applaud that effort.   

But if your hope is that they will find that the risk outweighs the benefits, and that GAS surgeries will suffer the same fate as lobotomies (as you seem to be implying by your comparison), then I think you are going to be sorely disappointed and I am willing to place that bet.  

 

Edited August 6 by pogi

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, pogi said:

Why aren't people freaking out and trying to ban cosmetic surgeries, breast augmentation, and knee replacement surgeries?

They are for some of these when done for minors.  
 

Also knee replacement doesn’t interfere usually with someone from having children nor does your other comparisons. I think the possibility of this loss which so many see as an essential part of their life and want their children to have the choice as well places this type of medical intervention in a different category (in full disclosure, my daughter has wanted a hysterectomy since mid teens and if the doctors would have given it to her, I would have been all for it though it breaks my heart she is in that situation).

Is the 1% relative for those receiving treatment as minors or as adults?  The numbers might be very different, so while the 1% if adult may suggest there is an acceptable level of remorse for the younger transitioner, we need to focus on getting solid studies of long term attitudes post transitioning so better decisions can be made.

Edited August 5 by Calm

[pogi]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

They are for some of these when done for minors.

Granted, any issue will have some enemies or advocates, but the level of "freaking out" is not near where the culture wars has taken transgender issues. 

How much concern has been expressed on these boards about cosmetic surgeries and knee surgeries in youth compared to transgender surgeries, for example?  I remember 1 maybe 2 discussions about the serious issue of genital mutilation (aka male circumcision of babies), I don't recall any discussions about breast augmentation or other cosmetic surgeries in children, and certainly no discussions about the relatively extremely high dissatisfaction of knee replacement surgery as compared to GAS.  

[CV75]

33 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

"gender is something that is completely independent of biological sex."

Let's start with the lowest hanging fruit.

All spirits in the pre-existence had a gender (so says the proclamation on the family). This includes Lucifer and all of the spirit children of God who followed Lucifer. All of these spirits have a gender (according to the Proclamation). None of them will ever have a biological sex (according to LDS theology). Thus, gender is completely independent of biological sex. The reverse may not be true.

So, given that spirit (with a gender) and its separable and inseparable connection with its assigned element (characterized with a biology in the separable, mortal estate and with a parallel vital process in the inseparable, resurrected estate), we rightly discuss the OP in terms of how we navigate the Lord's design and will in this estate and beyond.

The Handbook provides great guidance for members of the Church, and public policy and professional standards provide great secular guidance, in this estate.

So, the question is whether the eternal gender is expressed more perfectly as the soul progresses from one estate to the next, given the present teaching that gender refers to biological sex at birth (which physical expression continues in the resurrection, on whatever basis the body's vital process is restored). The vital process ("biology") of our organized element having been introduced pre-Fall (as Adam and Eve, figurative men and women) seems to favor a doctrine that distinct (male, female) gender is more perfectly expressed in concert with distinct physical traits that are better defined and completed along the path of salvation along the succession of estates.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Also knee replacement doesn’t interfere usually with someone from having children nor does your other comparisons. I think the possibility of this loss which so many see as an essential part of their life and want their children to have the choice as well places this type of medical intervention in a different category (in full disclosure, my daughter has wanted a hysterectomy since mid teens and if the doctors would have given it to her, I would have been all for it though it breaks my heart she is in that situation).

Just noticed you edited this after I responded, so I will respond to the rest.

The vast majority of GAS procedures don't interfere with having children either.   Those procedures that do permanently interfere with fertility certainly deserve much higher caution, and I don't think any provider is doing that type of procedure willy nilly.   I agree that type of procedure is in a different category, but to be fair, the discussion is not limited to those types of procedures so my comparison is only to the much more common and less invasive procedures.  LoudMouthMormon is including the much more common mastectomies, etc. As Benjamin McGuire noted, the types of procedure you are talking about is extremely rare with only around 20 per year in the US being performed.  However, LoudMouth is talking about "thousands" of procedures, so he is mostly talking about the other more comparable procedures.    

I know that hormone therapy "can" interfere with fertility permanently, but I don't know the rates.  I don't know how reversible it is.  That would be good to know.  But either way, that would only be an issue for around 1% who are unhappy with their decision and may be reversible.   

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Is the 1% relative for those receiving treatment as minors or as adults?  

Both.  It includes data for 13 years old and older. 

 

Edited August 6 by pogi

[LoudmouthMormon]

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Detransitioning is not done because someone changed their mind. 

Chloe Cole is an autistic individual.  She is a real human.  She deserves to not have her lived experience ignored/dismissed by people who would have their worldview threatened if she really does exist, and really does have the experiences she claims to have experienced.  As someone who claims to value marginalized people in greater risk of harm, please do better.

Patrick Mitchell is an individual.  He is a real human.  He deserves to not have his lived experience ignored/dismissed by people who would have their worldview threatened if he really does exist, and really does have the experiences he claims to have experienced.  As someone who claims to value marginalized people at greater risk of harm, please do better.

Zahra Cooper  is an individual with aspergers.  He is a real human.  He deserves to not have his lived experience ignored/dismissed by people who would have their worldview threatened if he really does exist, and really does have the experiences he claims to have experienced.  As someone who claims to value marginalized people at greater risk of harm, please do better.

You can credibly claim most don't detransition.  You can say " You might do this because you lost your insurance or because you are around unsupportive family or because you are battling your insurance company or you move and can't find a doctor willing to treat dysphoria after your move or lots of other reasons."  But how can anyone take what you say seriously, when you refuse to admit that people with stories that threaten your ideology, even exist?

Sometimes kids change their minds.  Sometimes kids get things wrong about their self-identity.  Just because a minor believes a thing about themselves, doesn't mean they'll feel that way the next year, next month, even the next day.   Please admit to that reality.

 

4 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I think that you have issues.

4 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

you are spitting out a lot of propaganda about things that you seem to know absolutely nothing about

Demonization of opposing voices is hardly rare.  But in a society that values free speech and reason, it sort of counts against you in a marketplace of free ideas.   For the record, I don't think you have issues.  I don't think your posts constitute "spitting propaganda".  You seem to have read and researched quite a bit.  I have no counter-demonization to offer you, friend.  

4 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I don't disagree with the idea that some diagnostic rigor is important - especially for surgical interventions. But it isn't clear that this isn't happening already for the most part.

I don't recall ever suggesting otherwise.  But again, if something happens "for the most part", that means there's a remainder where it isn't happening.  Chloe Cole's story is hardly unique - she feels talked into it.  She was prescribed meds after a phone call with a doctor.  She saw no rigor.   Here's my point, which I stated quite clearly in my opening post: 

Quote

Back in 2018, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued it's first policy statement, it urged clinicians use a nonjudgmental approach where the clinician supported the child's professed gender identity.  Youth should, the policy recommended, have "access to comprehensive gender-affirming and developmentally appropriate health care".

Read the policy statement.  The link is right there.  One of the loudest, most respected voices, the AAP, urges that stuff and doesn't have a thing to say about diagnostic rigor.   The words "diagnose" and "rigor" don't appear in their policy.  I have a big problem with that.

I'm hopeful their recently announced review process will lead them to revise their rigor-less, "believe 'em and treat 'em like it's true" policy.  

Edited August 6 by LoudmouthMormon

[Benjamin McGuire]

7 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Chloe Cole's story is hardly unique

We don't make rules based on exceptions. We don't make policy based on exceptions. When you put an exception as the poster child, it creates bad arguments. It doesn't matter if you can put a name and a face to your argument in these circumstances.

[The Nehor]

51 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Chloe Cole is an autistic individual.  She is a real human.  She deserves to not have her lived experience ignored/dismissed by people who would have their worldview threatened if she really does exist, and really does have the experiences she claims to have experienced.  As someone who claims to value marginalized people in greater risk of harm, please do better.

Patrick Mitchell is an individual.  He is a real human.  He deserves to not have his lived experience ignored/dismissed by people who would have their worldview threatened if he really does exist, and really does have the experiences he claims to have experienced.  As someone who claims to value marginalized people at greater risk of harm, please do better.

Zahra Cooper  is an individual with aspergers.  He is a real human.  He deserves to not have his lived experience ignored/dismissed by people who would have their worldview threatened if he really does exist, and really does have the experiences he claims to have experienced.  As someone who claims to value marginalized people at greater risk of harm, please do better.

You can credibly claim most don't detransition.  You can say " You might do this because you lost your insurance or because you are around unsupportive family or because you are battling your insurance company or you move and can't find a doctor willing to treat dysphoria after your move or lots of other reasons."  But how can anyone take what you say seriously, when you refuse to admit that people with stories that threaten your ideology, even exist?

Sometimes kids change their minds.  Sometimes kids get things wrong about their self-identity.  Just because a minor believes a thing about themselves, doesn't mean they'll feel that way the next year, next month, even the next day.   Please admit to that reality.

My fault. You were responding to a typo I made. I meant that detransitioning is not “usually” done because someone decided they weren’t transgender. It is a low single digit percentage.

The problem is you value the much rarer exceptions over the norm.

No one’s worldview is threatened. I don’t expect children, their parents, and their doctors to always be right. Mistakes will be made.

55 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Read the policy statement.  The link is right there.  One of the loudest, most respected voices, the AAP, urges that stuff and doesn't have a thing to say about diagnostic rigor.   The words "diagnose" and "rigor" don't appear in their policy.  I have a big problem with that.

I'm hopeful their recently announced review process will lead them to revise their rigor-less, "believe 'em and treat 'em like it's true" policy.  

It is a psychological problem. You diagnose someone with dysphoria by talking to them. Telling the patient they are wrong won’t help with a diagnosis which is why they say to take a non-judgemental approach.

This is a reaction to the past where the usual response to gender dysphoria was “you’ll grow out of it” or “this is tied to something else” or just dismissing the situation outright.