Apology for the Priesthood Ban / "March of Dimes Syndrome" / "Mission Creep" / "Spencer's Law"

[california boy]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't know what it is like to struggle with anorexia or bulimia, but that does not mean I cannot have an opinion on whether we as a society should be encouraging/facilitating such behaviors.

Yes, mental health issues can be difficult to fathom.  I think we all agree on that.

"Glib" as in "(of words or the person speaking them) fluent and voluble but insincere and shallow."

You, like Roger, are fabricating and imputing motives and sentiments onto me which I do not hold.

Again, I think you are doing this because you are trying to silence discussion of this topic.

Again, I think we should be having these discussions.

I think my question is a reasonable one.  "What other medical procedures are authorized under threat of suicide?”

I can go along with that.

But I think there can be some "way{s} to proceed" that are not appropriate for minors.  

A 15-year-old girl who is 5'6 and weights 98 pounds and suffers from Body Dysmorphic Disorder (BDD) or an eating disorder, such as anorexia nervosa, may really really want to receive some form of bariatric surgery.  Would there be any circumstance in which you feel such a procedure would be beneficial to the patient?  

Now suppose she even says that she will commit suicide if she doesn't get the procedure.  Would that alter the calculus?  Is a threat of suicide a legitimate factor when considering bariatric surgery for this patient?

Thanks,

-Smac

So do you think you should impose your beliefs on anorexia and Body Dysmorphic Disorder and demand that those suffering with those issues should follow what you believe is the best course of action?  Or even in those cases, isn't the parent, child and doctor the best ones to understand what is going on to cause these issues and deal with them in an informed way?  Or are you going to push for a one size solution that they all have to follow for them as well?

 

[california boy]

2 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

It seems like every week, there's a new unhappy former trans person speaking out against the opposite of this notion.   All of them tell a variation of the same story:
- They were convinced they were trans youth
- They finally got their reluctant parents to go to the gender-affirming care doctor, who all told the parents a variation of this phrase.  "You can either have a living son or a dead daughter", etc. 
- That phrase convinced the reluctant parents, who agreed to the procedure/medicine.
- Later, sometimes immediately later, they realized they made a mistake.
- Now they bemoan the lasting impacts of medical or surgical transition, and wish the doctor had never uttered that horrible notion.  

I've lost count of the numbers of individuals telling a variation of this story.  Maybe half started this journey as an adult, the other half as minors.  They all express the same regrets.  Many of them complain about lifelong medical issues as a result.

So many of them, they've started organizing into groups.  The Detrans Alliance on TikTok.  The Detransawareness.org people. They buddy up with activists like Riley Gains, and she'll post their stories.  They often find their ways to the Gays Against Groomers org and tell their stories on that platform.  Google 'em up if you like.  A lot of them want to tell their stories anonymously.  Many give a video or write a bit and disappear.  Not enough anecdotes for a study.

But yeah, I figure "better a living trans kid than a dead one forced to live their birth sex" will go down in the history books in the same class as claims blacks were inferior because of biology, or the stuff aryan racists said in nazi germany about Jews, or the corpus of human thought on why women shouldn't do this or that.  Maybe in my lifetime I'll see that.

I am glad that some people are coming out and telling their stories of the mistakes they made.  I think they are an important voice in discussing this issue with the parent. child and doctor.  I am fully supportive of requiring an educational course mandated before any surgeries.  BUT, Understanding also brings up a very valid point.

 

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

What percentage of people who undergo these procedures later regret it? How does that compare to other major surgeries or drug treatment regimes. What percentage of teens that were on psychiatric drugs regret it? How does that compare to puberty blockers? 

There is also no denying that there are those who are thrilled that they were able to get the help they need and live their lives the way they want.  In the end, it is their life, not yours, not mine.

[Calm]

Smac, have you ever had a child treated for depression and/or anxiety?  Suicide is discussed in my experience as a possible outcome of both no treatment and treatment (some drugs can backfire, so it’s important to observe your child closely and not just assume everything is okay once they are on meds).

Edited October 15, 2024 by Calm

[Analytics]

Looking deeper into this, I thought it was interesting that ChatGPT4o and the AAP said that when preteens have gender dysphoria, we should “recognize the child’s self-identified gender.” While it is easy for @smac97 to take what he apparently thinks is a courageous moral stance on being against, with some exceptions, chopping off healthy body parts, I wonder what he thinks about the recommendation that a child’s “self-identified gender” should be “recognized.” In his mind, is that a good thing or a bad thing?

I decided to follow up with ChatGPT4o on this:

Q:  Why should the child’s self-identified gender be recognized? Isn’t gender dysphoria a disorder, and shouldn’t the correct course of action be to fix the child and force them to accept that their real gender is necessarily the same as their biological sex?

A: Recognizing a child’s self-identified gender is important because it validates their lived experience and can significantly improve their mental health. Studies show that affirming a child’s gender identity can reduce the risk of depression, anxiety, and suicidal thoughts. While gender dysphoria is categorized as a psychological condition, the focus of treatment is not to "fix" the child but to alleviate distress. Forcing a child to conform to a gender they don't identify with can exacerbate mental health issues. Modern medical consensus supports care that is affirming rather than coercive.

The goal is to improve the child’s well-being, and that means working with—not against—their identity.

Q: Are you sure? Could you search the medical literature on the internet and find some recent references that summarize the research on this topic?

A: Research overwhelmingly supports the benefits of recognizing a child’s self-identified gender, especially when considering the mental health outcomes of transgender and nonbinary youth. Gender dysphoria, while classified as a condition, is treated most effectively when the child’s identity is affirmed rather than forced to conform to their biological sex.

Studies have shown that gender-affirming care, including social affirmation (like using the child’s preferred name and pronouns) and medical interventions (like puberty blockers), can lead to significant improvements in mental health. For instance, transgender youth who receive gender-affirming care report lower levels of depression and suicidality compared to those who do not receive such support. One study found a 73% decrease in suicidality and a 60% reduction in depression among youth who accessed care like puberty blockers or hormone therapy. Conversely, denying or delaying access to affirming care can exacerbate distress and increase the risk of self-harm or suicidal thoughts.

The debate around whether parents or the state should make these decisions is complex. Proponents of parental and medical authority argue that these decisions should be made collaboratively by families, doctors, and the child, as they are deeply personal and situation-specific. Critics of state interference often point out that blanket bans on gender-affirming care could endanger transgender youth by denying them critical support during formative years.

In summary, forcing children to conform to their biological sex against their will could lead to worsened mental health outcomes. Affirming their gender identity, on the other hand, tends to be associated with improved well-being. This highlights the importance of individualized care that takes into account the child’s needs, parental involvement, and professional medical advice.

References:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2789423

https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/149/1 Meeting Abstracts February 2022/590/186447/Mental-Health-Outcomes-and-Receipt-of-Gender

https://capmh.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13034-024-00798-w

https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/political-minds/202201/the-evidence-trans-youth-gender-affirming-medical-care

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/transgender-youth-mental-health-gender-affirming-care-laws

 

[MiserereNobis]

I asked ChatGPT 4o to quiz me on lines of obscure Grateful Dead lyrics to see if I knew the song. After the third made up lyric I stopped. 
 

I’m not sure we should be using ChatGPT for answers to issues like these. 
 

(The made up lyric lines were kinda cool and might have been Dead lyrics in another world, but alas, the AI was “dead” wrong) 

[LoudmouthMormon]

[Deleted. Got to feel a little more love to respond appropriately. Might try again tomorrow, IDK.]

Edited October 16, 2024 by LoudmouthMormon

[Analytics]

43 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Yes.  But sadly, you'll dismiss their stories as products of my opinion, which I got from a political echo chamber. 

I mean, there aren't many of them, but yes, they exist.  They deserve better than to be brushed aside as not existing. 

You gonna downvote this post too?

Let me clarify my original point: it wasn’t a denial that there are cases where people with dysphoria feel are extremely distressed and might make such threats. Rather, it's a question of whether any credible doctor would immediately jump to surgery based on a child’s threat, especially without extensive evaluation and mental health support first. I would expect medical professionals, including those in gender-affirming care, to approach these situations carefully, prioritizing psychological evaluations, therapy, and other interventions long before surgery is even considered, particularly for minors. If someone were credibly threatening suicide the way you describe, I’d expect the doctor to institutionalize them, not capitulate to the threat and perform the surgery.

That being said, if there are documented cases where surgery was performed as an immediate response to a suicide threat, I’d genuinely like to see the sources. This discussion should be grounded in facts, not just rhetoric from either side.

And no, I'm not here to dismiss stories or people who have gone through such situations. I just want to make sure we’re approaching this topic with the nuance it deserves.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Analytics said:

I just want to make sure we’re approaching this topic with the nuance it deserves.

Yes, that would be nice.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

I asked ChatGPT 4o to quiz me on lines of obscure Grateful Dead lyrics to see if I knew the song. After the third made up lyric I stopped. 
 

I’m not sure we should be using ChatGPT for answers to issues like these. 
 

(The made up lyric lines were kinda cool and might have been Dead lyrics in another world, but alas, the AI was “dead” wrong) 

Hmmm. What’s interesting about version 4o is that you can instruct it to perform internet searches when forming its answers, and you can upload links and entire documents as part of the question--up to something like 25,000 words. Version 4o is much better than version 4. That said, if there is anything specific that it said that you disagree with, make your argument.

[Analytics]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Quote

I just want to make sure we’re approaching this topic with the nuance it deserves

Yes, that would be nice.

Thanks,

-Smac

Just to see what ChatGPT4o thinks about this, I loaded the last 6 pages of this conversation into it and asked the following question:

Q: Is smac97 demonstrating the nuance he wants to see when he repeatedly asks loaded questions about alleged ideological support for medical treatments involving electively removing healthy body parts of children and electively sterilizing children? From what you’ve seen, is that a fair representation of analytics views?

A: From what I’ve seen, smac97’s repeated use of loaded questions, such as those about "removing healthy body parts" or "sterilizing children," does not demonstrate the nuance he claims to seek. These types of questions simplify complex issues and suggest ideological motives that may not align with Analytics' actual views. Analytics tends to focus on more nuanced, case-by-case considerations involving mental health, ethics, and medical expertise, rather than promoting a blanket endorsement of extreme or ideologically driven treatments. Thus, smac97's representation of Analytics' stance seems unfair and overly reductionist.

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Just to see what ChatGPT4o thinks about this, I loaded the last 6 pages of this conversation into it and asked the following question:

Q: Is smac97 demonstrating the nuance he wants to see when he repeatedly asks loaded questions about alleged ideological support for medical treatments involving electively removing healthy body parts of children and electively sterilizing children? From what you’ve seen, is that a fair representation of analytics views?

A: From what I’ve seen, smac97’s repeated use of loaded questions, such as those about "removing healthy body parts" or "sterilizing children," does not demonstrate the nuance he claims to seek. These types of questions simplify complex issues and suggest ideological motives that may not align with Analytics' actual views. Analytics tends to focus on more nuanced, case-by-case considerations involving mental health, ethics, and medical expertise, rather than promoting a blanket endorsement of extreme or ideologically driven treatments. Thus, smac97's representation of Analytics' stance seems unfair and overly reductionist.

Speaking of loaded questions...

[Peacefully]

IMHO, both sides need to learn to discuss this reasonably and rationally before bringing AI into it, otherwise I think you are just going to get feedback based on confirmation bias. Garbage in, garbage out. 

Edited October 16, 2024 by Peacefully

[Analytics]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Speaking of loaded questions...

Touche. Is the following better?

Q: How would you summarize Analytics’ actual views?

A: Analytics' actual views seem to focus on the need for careful, case-by-case consideration when it comes to medical interventions for children, particularly around sensitive issues like gender dysphoria. Rather than supporting blanket procedures like surgery or sterilization, Analytics emphasizes the importance of psychological evaluations, mental health support, and family discussions before any irreversible medical decisions are made. Their approach advocates for respecting medical expertise and ensuring decisions prioritize the well-being of the child, not ideologically driven extremes.

Q: How would you summarize Smac97’s views?

A: Smac97’s views seem focused on a strong skepticism toward medical treatments for children, particularly when it comes to gender-affirming care. They emphasize concerns about the ethical implications of irreversible procedures like surgery or sterilization for minors, often framing these interventions as extreme and ideologically driven. Smac97 also appears to be concerned about what they perceive as the erosion of parental rights and the long-term consequences of such treatments. Their stance leans heavily toward caution and emphasizes protecting children from potential harm.

Q: Please search the internet and comment on which set of views is better supported by the totality of the scientific evidence.

A: When comparing the views of smac97 and Analytics with respect to the scientific evidence on gender-affirming care, the totality of research tends to align more with Analytics’ perspective. Studies show that gender-affirming care, which includes puberty blockers and hormone treatments, can lead to significant improvements in the mental health of transgender youth, including reduced rates of depression, anxiety, and suicidality.

For example, research published in Pediatrics and studies conducted by medical institutions like Harvard Medical School show that transgender youth who receive gender-affirming care are less likely to experience suicidal ideation and depression compared to those who do not receive such care. These findings suggest that, when carefully administered, these treatments help alleviate gender dysphoria and improve quality of life for many young people.

Smac97's concerns, particularly around the ethical implications of irreversible procedures for minors, are valid points of discussion. However, it is important to note that surgeries are not typically performed on minors without thorough evaluation, and such interventions often occur only after significant psychological assessment and when the patient is approaching adulthood. Most of the current scientific literature focuses on the benefits of non-surgical interventions (like puberty blockers), which are fully reversible, and hormone therapy, which is carefully monitored.

In conclusion, while both smac97 and Analytics raise important ethical questions, the scientific evidence currently supports Analytics’ view that gender-affirming care, when handled with professional oversight, can be beneficial for the mental health and overall well-being of transgender youth.

https://www.bing.com/search?pc=OA1&q=scientific evidence on gender affirming care for minors versus ethical concerns irreversible procedures

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/political-minds/202201/the-evidence-trans-youth-gender-affirming-medical-care

https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/population-care/understanding-short-term-impact-gender-affirming-care

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-02082-w

 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

That being said, if there are documented cases where surgery was performed as an immediate response to a suicide threat, I’d genuinely like to see the sources. This discussion should be grounded in facts, not just rhetoric from either side.

Me as well. I would be surprised if any doctor would agree to as it’s not wise to perform surgery on someone who is in the middle of a breakdown.  Mental stability is needed as well as physical stability.   They need to be able to help in their recovery. The pain and other issues accompanying surgery could push them over if they were truly suicidal.  They could be distressed because it doesn’t look like they expected or hoped for because it takes time to heal. 

——

I can see parents hearing the threat from their child pushing the doctor to agree to it, but not the doctor. I would anticipate if such comments of their child being at significant risk for suicide are made by doctors, if they are truly made and not just interpreted that way or even made up to strengthen the complaint of the doctors mishandling the situation, that what is intended by the doctor is as time goes on and the child is under more and more distress at not being able to reconcile who they are with how they are expected to live, that suicide is a risk. 

A doctor is unlikely to be sued for not performing a procedure, especially if uncommon and not obviously life threatening not to do it (and I don’t mean suicide, but something like bleeding internally, ruptured appendix, cancer that is missed where surgery is the accepted standard of care), but much more likely if they did and the patient is not satisfied, just as they would be less likely to be sued for not giving a medication than for if they gave the wrong one.

I can see agreeing to puberty blockers, but more likely if there were threats of suicide they would choose to treat that first with antidepressants…which take time to work, so surgery even if considered, would not necessarily be rushed. 

Not saying mistakes don’t happen, certainly they happened with myself and my daughter, but those mistakes were the doctors just doing the usual, safe and especially easy thing, not listening and definitely not pushing for something more extreme and more at risk for malpractice. One of the reasons I was told that there are so few pediatric psychiatrists was because of fear of lawsuits as parents are well known to sue if something goes wrong and juries are sympathetic to grieving parents.

Aside:  anyone know about the side effects of puberty blockers taken for other reasons besides gender dysphoria?  I can’t get google to understand what I want. I am wondering if the suppression of hormones improves mood in those taking it for other reasons as puberty with its hormones is hard on any kid’s mood, so perhaps removing those hormones helps improve it…though there would be stress if a child wanted to go through puberty, but couldn’t for some reason.  Since they are mostly used for precocious puberty, that seems unlikely to be an issue. 

Edited October 16, 2024 by Calm

[Analytics]

Bonus question...

Q: But smac97 has provided extensive quotes from case studies of people who have criticized the research that gender affirmative care relies on, and case studies of children who regret and have been injured by the treatment. Doesn’t that prove the state should intervene to stop this experimentation on kids?

Quote

Smac97’s use of case studies and criticisms of gender-affirming care, particularly from individuals who regret their treatment or have suffered negative outcomes, raises important ethical concerns. These individual stories can indeed highlight instances where the process failed or where outcomes were not as intended. However, case studies and personal testimonies, while emotionally powerful, do not represent the totality of scientific evidence or medical consensus.

Here are a few key points to consider when evaluating whether such case studies justify state intervention to stop gender-affirming care:

1. Case Studies vs. General Evidence: Individual cases of regret or harm are real and should not be dismissed. However, they are not statistically representative of the broader population. The majority of research, including large-scale studies, supports the conclusion that gender-affirming care significantly improves mental health outcomes for the majority of transgender youth. These include reductions in depression, anxiety, and suicidality (Psychology Today, American Medical Association). Most medical decisions carry risks, but the consensus within the medical community is that, for the vast majority of youth who undergo gender-affirming care, the benefits outweigh the risks Nature.

    

2. Critiques of Methodology: Some criticisms of the research on gender-affirming care point to methodological weaknesses or biases in certain studies. It's true that no research is perfect, and constructive critique helps improve scientific understanding. However, the overwhelming body of peer-reviewed research supporting gender-affirming care has been subjected to extensive scrutiny and has shown consistent, positive mental health outcomes across various populations and methodologies. Rejecting this entire body of research based on a few critical voices or outliers would not reflect the broader evidence base.
    

3. Medical Guidelines and Safeguards: Gender-affirming care for minors is not a decision made lightly. There are extensive safeguards in place, including thorough mental health evaluations, psychological support, and a focus on reversible interventions like puberty blockers before irreversible decisions are made. The medical community takes these treatments seriously and closely monitors outcomes. Puberty blockers, for example, are fully reversible, and they provide youth more time to explore their identity before making any permanent decisions (American Medical Association).
    

4. State Intervention and Medical Ethics: Calls for state intervention to completely ban gender-affirming care would have broad consequences for the many transgender youth who benefit from these treatments. State-level bans may prevent access to necessary mental health and medical care for those who need it. Rather than a blanket ban, a more balanced approach would involve ensuring that ethical safeguards, proper evaluations, and informed consent processes are in place.

In summary, while smac97's use of case studies sheds light on the potential risks, it does not justify an outright state intervention to ban gender-affirming care. The larger body of evidence supports the view that, when properly managed, gender-affirming care significantly improves mental health outcomes for transgender youth. The focus should be on refining care protocols, ensuring thorough evaluations, and offering appropriate support, rather than halting care entirely based on a minority of adverse cases.

 

[Dario_M]

I gotta say. I'm agree with Smac on this one. 

[Analytics]

57 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Speaking of loaded questions...

I’ve been testing how ChatGPT4o handles its analysis of these things, and I wanted to test how it handles loaded questions compared to my prior experience with ChatGPT4. In case anyone is interested...

Q: For purposes of this conversation, please disregard everything we’ve talked about and everything you know about me.

A: Understood! For this conversation, I will disregard previous information. How can I assist you today?

Q: I’m going to give you several web sites. Don’t answer any questions until they are loaded

A: Understood

[last 6 pages of this discussion uploaded]

Q: Is analytics demonstrating the nuance he claims to wants when he refuses to address smac97’s questions and instead demonstrates his ideological support for medical treatments involving electively removing healthy body parts of children and electively sterilizing children?

A: Analytics appears to assert nuance in his stance, but his refusal to directly answer Smac97’s specific questions regarding elective medical treatments involving children, such as the removal of healthy body parts and sterilization, raises concerns. While advocating for these treatments, his ideological support seems to overshadow a deeper engagement with the ethical complexities Smac97 raises. This may hinder the nuanced discourse he claims to seek, as his responses focus more on defending a position than on addressing potential contradictions or moral dilemmas brought up by Smac97.

Q: In general, which person has a more nuanced position, analytics or smac97?

A: Between Analytics and Smac97, Smac97 appears to present a more consistently nuanced position. Smac97 engages deeply with the ethical concerns surrounding gender-affirming medical treatments, specifically focusing on the moral and practical implications of performing irreversible surgeries on minors. Smac97 asks detailed questions that probe inconsistencies in the opposing position and emphasizes informed consent and long-term risks. Analytics, on the other hand, often sidesteps these questions, focusing instead on defending the treatments from an ideological perspective, which may limit the perceived depth of nuance in his arguments.

----------------------

By starting fresh with the one leading question that presupposes my alleged "ideological support for medical treatments involving electively removing healthy body parts of children,” ChatGPT got on a totally different track and had completely different analysis of the conversation. I was hoping that with so many posts that its conclusions would converge on the same result regardless of how the conversation started, but alas, it doesn’t work that way. Everything I copy/pasted above is a lot less objective than I originally thought.

[Calm]

For those of you who are pro withholding medical treatment for gender dysphoria in general, what do you feel about male minors who get a breast reduction done due to excess breast tissue?  Should there be laws banning these until they are adults?

 In 2011–so chances are it’s happening more now—there were over 14,000 of these done in the US.

And yet I haven’t heard any controversy on this surgical removal of healthy breasts on biological male minors.

The reason for much of the surgeries?  “Emotional distress and shame.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3706055/#:~:text=Approximately 8%2C000 young women ages,procedure in the same year.

Quote

Emotional distress and shame about appearance are considered to be indications for surgery.22,23 Adolescent boys with this condition frequently experience significant psychosocial problems because of the gender-incongruent appearance of their chests, including low self-esteem, body-image disturbances, and teasing related to breast enlargement.21,23,24 Many affected adolescent boys camouflage the appearance of their chests by wearing loose or oversized shirts or binding their chests with tape or other restrictive materials. Avoidance of situations and activities in which their chest may be exposed (e.g., locker room, athletic activities) is also common. Case reports have described social isolation, eating pathology, depressive symptoms, and social anxiety among affected adolescent boys.25 A recent retrospective study of 24 adolescent boys ages 10 to 18 seeking surgery for gynecomastia correction found that 100% of patients met diagnostic criteria for a formal psychiatric condition, primarily adjustment disorder, but also anxiety disorders and dysthymia, and reported significantly higher levels of anxiety, depression, and social phobia compared with the general population.26

 

Looks like some of these clients were also unhappy with the results. 

Quote

Though many of the psychosocial problems associated with gynecomastia are thought to resolve postoperatively, empirical evaluation of postoperative psychosocial outcomes is very limited. Clinical experience suggests that surgery does not improve psychosocial functioning for all. Surgery results in some degree of scarring that can be problematic for some patients. Furthermore, some patients report dissatisfaction with their postoperative outcome even after technically successful procedures.23,24 Such reports suggest that psychosocial factors such as body image may play an important role in predicting postoperative outcomes. Another underinvestigated issue is substance use and abuse. Marijuana, anabolic steroids, and other drugs can cause gynecomastia,21 and substance use can be a marker for psychiatric problems. More research is clearly needed to examine the pre- and postoperative psychosocial functioning of adolescent boys with gynecomastia.

 

Edited October 16, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

In fact the vast majority (97%) of gender affirming breast surgery on male minors is for cisgender males…and yet it is only the transgender surgeries that are in the news…or being protested here.

Quote

Of gender-affirming surgical procedures identified among adults and minors, 1591 of 2664 (59.7%) and 82 of 85 (96.4%) were chest-related procedures, respectively. Of the 636 breast reductions among cisgender male and TGD adults, 507 (80%) were performed on cisgender males. Of the 151 breast reductions among cisgender male minors and TGD minors, 146 (97%) were performed on cisgender male minors (Figure 2).

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2820437#:~:text=The rate of undergoing a,or younger (Figure 1).

Edited October 16, 2024 by Calm

[Dario_M]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

For those of you who are pro withholding medical treatment for gender dysphoria in general, what do you feel about male minors who get a breast reduction done due to excess breast tissue?  Should there be laws banning these until they are adults?

Yeah absolutely. And wich male minors have excess breast tissue? Those kind of problems mostely begin when they're teenagers. I know this because when i was a child i didn't had breasts. That problem began when i was around 13 years old.

I find that they can wait until they are at least 16 years old to get an operation.  

Edited October 16, 2024 by Dario_M

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

Yeah absolutely. And wich male minors have excess breast tissue? Those kind of problems mostely begin when they're teenagers. I know this because when i was a child i didn't had breasts. That problem began when i was around 13 years old.

I find that they can wait until they are at least 16 years old to get an operation.  

So are you okay with transgendered minors waiting until they are 16?  
 

What is legal age in the Netherlands?

[Dario_M]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

So are you okay with transgendered minors waiting until they are 16?  
 

What is legal age in the Netherlands?

I've looked it up and it says younger then 12 years old. So here it is legal for children younger then 12 years old to get an fully transition. 

I'm not agree with that at all. 

Edited October 16, 2024 by Dario_M

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

Yeah absolutely. And wich male minors have excess breast tissue? Those kind of problems mostely begin when they're teenagers. I know this because when i was a child i didn't had breasts. That problem began when i was around 13 years old.

I find that they can wait until they are at least 16 years old to get an operation.  

Why do you think there is no public outcry against this procedure for cisgendered males even though it’s an identical procedure as is for transgendered boys (biological female) and even though it happened soooo much more often for cisgendered males than for transgendered?  Especially given there are negative reports of outcomes (but are they being published in the news anywhere?)

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

I've looked it up and it says younger then 12 years old. So here it is legal for children younger then 12 years old to get an fully transition. 

I'm not agree with that at all. 

I meant in general.  When are they considered adults?

Edited October 16, 2024 by Calm

[Dario_M]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Why do you think there is no public outcry against this procedure for cisgendered males even though it’s an identical procedure as is for transgendered boys (biological female) and even though it happened soooo much more often for cisgendered males than for transgendered?  Especially given there are negative reports of outcomes (but are they being published in the news anywhere?)

Oh you mean for a female to get rid of their breasts because they think they are a boy. 

It's just weird, a child can say so many thinks and not even mean it. I don't think it's normal as a parent to immediately run to a doctor with their child to chop off their breasts only because the child said she is in the wrong body. Oh my...only just the idea. 😖