all 85 comments

[–]SnowAssMan 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (36 children)

The 80% desistence rate before adulthood should put an end to the discussion on puberty blockers.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (35 children)

I believe that’s before puberty, by 13-14 the desistance rate drops dramatically

[–]MarkTwainiac 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Gender dysphoria that occurs well before puberty isn't the same as GD that occurs during or after puberty.

Most kids with pre-pubertal or childhood GD desist during or after puberty. This is true of both sexes, though most of the research on kids with childhood GD has been done on boys. Coz they used to be the vast majority of kids with childhood GD.

But GD that first rears its head during or after puberty is another matter. Historically, the vast majority of people with pubertal and/or adult-onset GD were males with autogynephilia. This includes all the males who "come out" as trans in middle or late age, like Jenner and Pritzker and a zillion other guys. There are no comparable groups of females coming out as trans in these age groups.

However, over the past decade a new trend and new population has emerged: girls and young women who first experience GD during or soon after puberty. These girls and young women are the new face of the young "trans" population who are being seen in clinics like the Tavistock GIDS and are being prescribed puberty blockers, CSHs, and encouraged to have life-altering surgeries. Double mastectomy is the most common "gender affirming" or "gender confirmation" surgery being done in Western nations nowadays.

Assumptions based on looking at earlier populations of young, middle-aged and old males who identify as trans can't be applied to the new population of females in their teens and 20s who are now IDing as trans in droves.

[–]MezozoicGaygay male 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

A lot of more feminine gay boys have GD during childhood, me included. It was mostly induced by "heteronormative" society and/or homophobia, thought.

There are no comparable groups of females coming out as trans in these age groups.

As far as I know, most are 14-22 years old. And very rarely later.

Assumptions based on looking at earlier populations of young, middle-aged and old males who identify as trans can't be applied to the new population of females in their teens and 20s who are now IDing as trans in droves.

There not only assumptions, they are getting same treatment as those studied boys before.

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I should have been clearer. I meant that there are no comparable groups of females who historically have "come out" as the opposite sex and "trans" either pre-puberty or well into adulthood. Whereas there's a longstanding pattern of (usually gay) males insisting they are the opposite sex in childhood before puberty - and an entirely different group of (heterosexual) males who for very different reasons claim they are women in middle-age and their senior years, almost always after they've had successful careers in macho fields - IT, the military - and have been married to women and fathered children.

Yes, most of the females coming out as "trans" nowadays are in a very narrow age band - though perhaps a bit broader than the one you cite. Still, there is no huge swathe of women coming out as "trans" in middle-age and later like there is with men. Since the trans craze first began, there's never been a cohort of female counterparts to all the middle-age and elderly transitioners like Morris, Richards, Jenner, Priztker, Beck, or Tur.

[–]MezozoicGaygay male 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes. And for most boys GD was going away after puberty. Most transsexuals I know and friend with are HSTS, they are gay men, living with men. In almost all cases GD was there because of homophobia and USSR treatment of homosexual men (during Stalin times started first surgeries, then after he died cross-sex hormonal therapies were started, and later started cross-sex hormonal therapies and surgeries, it was not done too often, only to gay men "caught" second time, but in society it was heavily implied). Most of them believed there must have been a mistake in them born loving men, and society was supporting this idea, including medical personnel. Some of them realized mistake they have done after society became more accepting and more liberal, others do not want to believe in that, as this will mean their whole life was in vain (that is why I think many who would love to detransition are not doing it). They all did surgeries when they were around 18-22 years old, 25 or more years ago.

As of AGP-types, I know only very few of them from the past, and mostly from news or reports. I know they were always present, as one was "divided" lesbian convention in 70s (I don't remember in USA or UK it was) by stating he is lesbian too (and he was pre-op as well), and some were against it, others did not minded it. Similar was happening at Stonewall riots and first Pride Parades, where AGP-types were trying to intimidate lesbians. However, they weren't very prominent, and mostly they were just part-time transvestites or cross-dressers. Today majority of transwomen I see are from them, while HSTS almost completely voiceless and often even hated by current transgender movement. Most HSTS I know are gender critical to some degree, it is a bit hypocritical, but still. Today AGP are the majority, which makes it worse for both women and transitioned transsexuals, but mostly for women.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I find your information doubtful

[–]MarkTwainiac 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Who is the "your" in your post? It's not clear who you're responding to.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You. How is that not clear?

[–]MarkTwainiac 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Coz you didn't name who were responding to. None of us can read your mind.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Generally one assumes that the comment that is being replied to is the subject of the reply in at least some capacity.

[–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (25 children)

Do you have a citation? I haven’t seen anything that indicates it happens that young.

[–]worried19[S] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (24 children)

I don't have a citation, but I have also read that it dramatically drops after puberty. Which is to say that preventing children from going through puberty is basically denying them the chance to desist.

13 is not after puberty, though. It's right in the middle of it. I would say maybe 15 would be a likelier age to tell whether or not a child's puberty has resolved their gender dysphoria.

[–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (23 children)

It does drop definitely. I feel like 15 or 16 might be better. Keira was 16 though so some people do desist after that. It’s tricky to balance. 🤷‍♀️

[–]MarkTwainiac 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Keira first experienced GD during puberty, which is common for females today. The situation - and desistance rates - of these girls and young women is entirely different to that of boys who experienced childhood GD prior to puberty.

It's also entirely different to the experience of all the boys and men who first experienced GD during or after male puberty.

https://4thwavenow.com/2017/12/07/gender-dysphoria-is-not-one-thing/

The pro-trans convo about PBs and Keira's case is being largely shaped by grown males who now ID as trans and say they wish they had been able to take PBs when they were young. These full-grown males have no idea whatsoever what it's like to be a girl going through puberty. All their views are based on their memories and current views of what it's like to be a young male who desperately wished he could escape his sex (often largely due to being gay) or change into a female coz of AGP. The experience of these males has absolutely nothing to do with the realities of what it's like to be a young person of the female sex going through female puberty and all the accompanying biological, psychological and social baggage and burdens that female puberty - and only female puberty - brings.

Both groups suffer, but the suffering of male and female young people with GD and the reasons for it are not at all the same!

[–]MezozoicGaygay male 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

As far as I know, puberty blockers are not needed for girls and women at all. As "female-bodied people" have no need to "stop body from irreversible changes from testosterone during puberty", while for men and boys - earlier transition will start, the more "feminine" they will looks visually and less cosmetic surgeries they will need. While woman can start transition at 50 and perfectly pass as a man, as testosterone changes are very strong and almost irreversible. Puberty blockers are much more dangerous for women's body. And testosterone is doing irreversible changes (unlike estrogen on men's body) on women's body and can lead to many health problems, increases cancer risks (unlike estrogen for men, which is mostly safe).

This means that treatment that can be good for transwomen is not working at all for transmen, and still transmen are getting same treatment as transwomen, while it is just wrong. And that bigger risks and less "reversibility" for transmen are not considered at all. Even main narrative of anti-Bell activists are all about transwomen and transwomen only.

Transwomen transition was studied for few decades by now, starting from 1930s for homosexual conversion therapy reasons up until 1980s, and from 1980s for transgender means (still often driven by homophobia, but not that much). Transmen were almost not existent, I believe transmen were 1% or less of all transgender population (today it is around 55-60% transmen and 40-45% tranwswomen). So transmen treatment was not researched as not needed one, it was happening even more rare than most rare intersex conditions (Transgenders were around 0.05% of population, and transmen were 1% of that, or 0.0005% of population). And now, when this boom is happening, transmen are just getting treatment made for "male-bodied people", and no new researches being done (at least until 2018, maybe 1 or 2 appeared today, but still not dozens of studies made about transwomen).

Interesting that even in this kind of medicine, the statistics and dynamics are staying the same as in regular medicine, even after presenting as opposite gender, - most of treatments are tested on males and then forced on females without many extra tests, and treatment for females is not even developed or tested at all. Same as in majority of medical fields.

[–]MarkTwainiac 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

You and I seem to generally agree on this. But regarding your comment that

While woman can start transition at 50 and perfectly pass as a man, as testosterone changes are very strong and almost irreversible.

My question is, how many women do you know or have heard about that at age 50 (or beyond) have decided to "start transition"?

There are tons of men who start transitioning in middle-age and their senior years, but hardly any women. Why is that?

[–]MezozoicGaygay male 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

The latest transition of female I know is at the age 28, and it was porn actress to become porn actor (Buck Angel).

Ellen (now Elliot) Page is 33, but seems it is just declaration, with no transition or anything.

It is mostly celebrities or famous people.

Even 20-30 years ago, almost no transmen were at all, almost all of them were celebrities, or very rare lesbians (and forced transitions of lesbians, which was sometimes practiced in USSR, and maybe other countries). Today transmen are the majority of transes. I haven't read Irreversible Damage yet, but my copy of the book should came soon, however, I can imagine what the reasoning is there for such insane increase in transitioning girls into transmen, while increase for transwomen is very gradual and among same demographics as before.

At the same time males are non-celebrities often transitioning when 30-40 years old, sometimes even when around 60 years old. I believe there even whole group called "trans widows", where wives of men who transitioned when 30+ and said to them something among the lines "man you married is dead now, I am new person and a lesbian now" (that is why word "widow" is used).

My question is

As many noted and as Tavistock data shown, most of women transitioners are gender non-conforming women, bisexual and lesbians (them combined is around 70% of all). Many of them are ones who would be "goth" or "emo" 10-15 years ago. I saw many comments from young mothers on twitter, that their 12 years old kids want to be girls, but do not want to grow up into a woman. And Tavistock data on court shown that drop rate from being GD for girls is at least 75% if they are not put on puberty blockers. So only 25% could be trans and 75% are just victims of social pressure and medical malpractice. Tavistock had no data on post-transitioned kids as well, while people who worked with post-transitioned girls and boys said that 26% of their clients after 2 years of transitioning had regrets of transitioning, with 25% more having regret but not wanting to reverse irreversible and be "ugly halfman-halfwoman". So around 51% are regreting transitioning. Which correlates with Tavistock data of drop rate as well, as it was 25% for boys and 75% for girls in last year, which is roughly 50%, but girls there more, so 51-55% looks reasonably close.

[–]reluctant_commenter 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Hey, just curious, do you have links to any of that Tavistock data? I would love to read more about that.

[–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I completely agree with everything you said. Thank you for putting it so succinctly. 😊

We need to stop treating all these different things like they are the same. For boy whose GD presents before puberty, I feel like by 15 or 16, if they are insistent despite not being affirmed, they probably will continue to persist. GD for girls or GD that begins during puberty should be treated totally differently I feel like.

It’s really worrying that the unfulfilled wishes of trans adults affect these policies. I feel very strongly that a male who presents with GD at age 8 is probably dealing with something totally different than a male who presents with GD at age 28. Same with females.

[–]MarkTwainiac 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Also, boys' and girls' experience of puberty is entirely different.

For boys, staring puberty means nocturnal emissions/wet dreams, spontaneous erections, changes to genitals, pubic and body hair, acne, smelly pits and feet, moodiness, horniness. All of those can be unpleasant and embarrassing.

But for males, puberty also means lots of jerking off and sexual pleasure. And being treated as a young man by others.

For girls, puberty principally means developing breasts and spending days each month bleeding from the vagina, often with debilitating cramps and preceded by mood swings, depression, abdominal bloating, water weight gain, extremely sore breasts. There are often pains and discomforts that go with ovulation too.

Puberty for a female also means being acutely aware that you can get pregnant, be forced to carry to term, and die in childbirth or be saddled with a child for the next two decades. This awareness creates a vulnerability in pubescent girls that most males don't seem capable of relating to - or even imagining. In the fantasies of TIMs, it never gets a mention. Coz they think female puberty is all about girls having sexy slumber parties and pillow fights.

For girls, puberty also means being set upon, harassed and preyed upon by males of all ages who see you as meat ("a piece of ass") and who take your secondary sex characteristics to mean that you are less than human and have been put on earth to serve males and satisfy their sexual desires.

Being treated as young man and young woman in society are entirely different experiences.

[–]worried19[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This is definitely one of those areas where we need research into differences between boys and girls and also childhood dysphoria vs. rapid adolescent onset.

[–]MezozoicGaygay male 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

In the Tavistock report from 2016, drop rate was around 90.3% of kids. In Keira Bell case they showed numbers of 25% for boys and 75% for girls. Tavistok numbers for lesbian and bisexual women were horrifying too - around 40% of girls transitioned with reasoning "I like girls", at least 950 of girls under Tavistok treatment to become transmen right now were butch lesbians. More than half of transitioned boys and a bit less than half of transitioned girls had parents (mostly mothers) with borderline personality disorders and "control freak" attitude.

In medicine even 1-5% is too huge of a number. This just means that current practice is completely wrong and must be improved a lot more, not "leave same practice, just move it from 14 years to 18 years". And must be improved and researched for transmen and transwomen separately, as numbers seems to be very different for them, and they both are ongoing same practices and treatment. And it seems it helps boys more than it helps girls (most detransitioners are females, most suicide attempts are done by transitioned females), and that it detects boys with GD much better than girls.

15-16

Puberty can start late and last long, in girls puberty ends earlier than in boys, but effects of it are lasting longer (breasts can be growing up until age of 20), while boys have more "stable" puberty with much smaller variations when it beings or ends. Plus men's sexuality is much easier to understand, men's body is accepted in most shapes and forms, and it is more researched and more visible everywhere, while women's sexuality is under researched and almost not shown anywhere, same with women's body, which is shamed and sexualized a lot (even menstruation advertisemens are getting banned for being "gross", if they are showing how to use the product). So my rulling would be something like - for boys it is safe at around 16-17 years age, maybe 18, and for girls it should be 20-22 at least.

And why I, a gay man, out of all people, know and care about all this things more than most? I was helping gay men couple to adopt a girl and was a nurse (nanny) to her from 4-5 up to 15 years, helping with her first periods and puberty, but it is just bothers me, that situation is like that, - that seems like majority of people just don't care about girls and young women at all (and I am not even speaking about majority of world, where women don't have any rights, I am speaking about more civilized parts of the world). At least it looks like this.

Actually, as I mentioned nursing, that is another my complain, to be able to take care about the girl - there were too few info about it in most places. And mostly focused on psychological factors. I was reading books for young mother's, comming to some mother's meetings (only on ones women were comfortable to speak with a man there, I was saying instantly I am a gay, to make them feel more comfortable too, and I was not judgemental at all about any of their statements, and seems like fathers were little to know about girls development), and asking chidlbirth nurses and other medical staff about raisign a girl "as a single parent". I found that A LOT is missing from books and guidelines, even today in the internet it is very hard to find anything about how to take care of kids after childbirth (on ukrainian and russian, on russian there a bit more info, but most of youth nowadays don't know russian very well), especially about raising girls. Almost all info is either very vague or described with innuendos to not be "gross" or "sexualized" (why menstruation is either "dirty" or "sexualized" in society's mind? It is just a normal process that is happening for 50% of population every 20-30 days, why we can talk about peeing, pooping, masturbating, but not about periods?), so most experience and knowledge is coming from women who already gave birth and raised one or few kids, not from other sources. It is either "you learn it on your own, through mistakes" or "ask someone who already did mistakes and learned". And what to do in countries with worse healthcare system (including countries with "good" healthcare systems like Saudi Arabia or Iran, as their healthcare system is only good for men, and almost non-existent for women), where women have less rights? I am always complaining about it, and many mothers are "yeah, it is true, but what we can do?", which makes me upset that society is like this right now.

[–]VioletRemihomosexual female (aka - lesbian) 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

So much this.

My sister is pregnant and afraid to give birth, because she knows nothing about taking care of kid, and guides in the internet are very confusing, and she is too afraid to ask her friends who already gave birth about what to do, as she afraid to be seen as too invasive or rude, and some questions she is too shy to ask. You, as a man, seems missed part that women often tought to be shy and not talk much about body-related topics to be "a good girl" - this have huge part in this all as well. So she will try asking childbirth nurse and doctors about this, especially about newly born child - when to feed, how to feed, what to do in general, etc.

[–]Elvira95 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Female or male baby? I envy the little creature who will have the coolest aunt in the world :D It's bit sad I will never be an aunt. I mean, being mother I don't care, but I could have beeen the cool gaming aunt :(

[–]VioletRemihomosexual female (aka - lesbian) 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Boy. And I hate little kids, lol. Maybe in 15 years he grow up that will be good, but not before. And we are leaking out of DM, honey.

[–]Elvira95 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I would prefer a niece. You know, feminism self and all lol But boy is nice too. You will play videogame together. Wait until he is a teen, and then he will ask you about conquering girls and videogames. It's cool

[–]MarkTwainiac 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

VioletRemi, there's no reason for your sister to feel so in the dark. There are tons of great childrearing books out there. Also, I recommend the Gesell books on child development from Yale University: they're slim volumes that tell what's going on developmentally in each year of a child's life, year by year. I found them enormously useful.

Also, most mums - and dads - love to be asked to share experiences and advice about birth and raising children.

If your sister speaks English, send her to Mumsnet. Tons of advice and support there.

Good luck.

[–]VioletRemihomosexual female (aka - lesbian) 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

She know neither English nor Russian, so can't really read any of those books. Her phone is broken, so she is coming to me to search stuff in internet mostly, and new phone she is not buying yet, as she is collecting money to buy baby stroller (it cost around 3-5 monthly incomes, and she is not working due to pregnancy and lockdown, just doing manicure at home and her husband is working, but work is not always there, as because of lockdown there too few of orders), and I am gifting her baby cot.

Mother is giving her advices, especially what to do right after birth, but sister is mostly saying "you gave birth to us in USSR, when even diapers/pampers were not existing here, now everything is completely different, you are no help in modern world!". She is still listening to her, tho, just annoyed that can't find anything "more modern" and in details, as she has literally no idea what to do with baby in first few months.

[–]MarkTwainiac 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

I was reading books for young mother's, comming to some mother's meetings (only on ones women were comfortable to speak with a man there, I was saying instantly I am a gay, to make them feel more comfortable too, and I was not judgemental at all about any of their statements,

Sorry, you as a male working as a child carer going to mothers' meetings was entirely inappropriate.

You were invading the space of these women, then you employed the fact that you're gay "to make them more comfortable." WTF? You being gay doesn't make you an honorary mother or honorary woman. None of those women probably gave a fuck about who you like to have sex with. They cared that you were a male horning in on an explicitly female group. If they seemed polite and accepting, it was probably coz their female socialization trained them to respond to male intrusion with smiles and outwardly accommodating behavior. Coz of fear. Inwardly, I bet they were seething.

I cannot imagine a woman who isn't a mother invading this group as you did. Or any older women who are mothers either. I'm a mother whose kids are grown, and I can't imagine a situation in which I or any other mother of older or grown children would ever see fit to intrude into a group for mothers of young children the way you did. The gall!

Now you're bragging that in response to the reactions of these mothers to your interloping into their group expressly for mothers

I was not judgemental at all about any of their statements

Well, bully for you. You sound like Columbus, Cortez, Andrew Jackson. Talk about MANifest destiny.

There are lots of books about baby & child care and early childhood development written by men. In fact, many of the biggest names in these fields are men: Gesell, Piaget, Spock, Brazelton, Ferber. If you want to discuss child care with other men, start your own group. Don't intrude upon groups set up by and for mothers!

[–]MezozoicGaygay male 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

No, it was common practice for single fathers to be invited or to come on their own into mother's meetings or joing mother's groups. Hospitals were orgainizing such events and hosting such groups only for mothers, while fathers rarely had any groups, and mostly those were their own created groups, and in general about more grown up children. It was not considered as normal for fathers to spend a lot of time with their kids, especially when country was very poor after USSR disbanding, and "man must work and bring money, woman take care of kids" was very common mindset (especially because majority of jobs were physically hard ones). And I needed courses for 2+ years old kids, as mentioned gay couple adopted 3 years old girl with health issues, who was left by father after mother have died, and no one wanted to adopt her for year or so. Maybe in very big cities there were father's groups organized for single fathers of very young children, but I had no ability to go there, and was not aware of one. It was right after USSR fell down and adopting laws were changed, anti-homosexual laws were removed (later were tries to return them, but with protests we were able stop it from happening), I was young back then - around 20 years old. We all were men and did not know how to raise a girl, but I did remembered accident from school, when I was around 10 years old, girl-classmate (she was raised by a single father) run into class with hands in blood and screamed that she is dying, in reality it was just her first menstruation and father not prepared her for that. So I know that girls' growing up and puberty is very different for boys, so I needed to learn to help them (especially later, when they both had a job during day, and I had night shifts - it was very common to leave your kid from age 4 until 10-12 years on relatives or friends during that time, as goverment was not paying for kids yet, incom was very low, was not possible to hire nanny, so to live both parents needed to work. I myself grown up with my aunt or granny mostly, as they worked 1/1 work/free shifts).

Well, bully for you.

I specified, because single fathers were often commenting on mother's experiences with sexist stuff. At least out of few I've met on such mother's meetings only one did not commented. Many came to 1-2 meetings and were "now I know all" and stopped course.

Sexuality actually meant a lot as well, as most single fathers were very young like me as well, and they often were doing sexualized comments about breastfeeding or in general staring at boobs. So even thought homophobia was still big, women just felt more comfortable with me being "freak who don't like women", so they were acting less restricted with me, than when other single fathers were present. And I was not coming at meetings for newborns as well.

About books - we only had here few soviet books, but they were mostly focused on psychiology and how to grow girl as a girl and boy as a boy, not on things like what to do at all with kid, when to feed, what to do when kid is crying, when change windings (there were no pampers or anything like that, just soft cloth on baby and oilcloth on bed), how to tell about menstruation (especially if you are a man), and so on. Most foreighn books were not translated, or if translated - illegaly and it was not too easy to get them. There were no internet as well, TV had literally 2 channels, cable TV was only starting appearing.

About girl, she is almost 30 years old now, married on a decent man, works as an aircraft ingeneer in Kyiv, planning to have a kid in decent future, she have twice as big income than her husband, so childcare leave he will take instead of her (it is paid by goverment and lasts for 3 years, organisation must pay 6 months of income for parent taking childcare leave, and must hold spot on a job). She is still calling me either "Uncle Nanny" or "Mister Nanny" (as in that american comedy with Hulk Hogan).

And yes, I understand your anger, but it was not something out of ordinary back then in post-USSR. And I understand myself, that it is not very good way to do things, but I was young there, and I am almost certain, I would not be able to get any fathers groups with knowledge that I needed. It is my bad, that I did not thought that in other countries everything was much more civilized, and English speaking countries had much more literature and services as well. I once blamed you that "not all world is UK and USA", and now myself is making the very same mistake myself. My apologies.

[–]MarkTwainiac 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No, it was common practice for single fathers to be invited or to come on their own into mother's meetings or joing mother's groups.

Please provide the documentation that shows groups of new mothers and mothers of young children of their own volition were inviting men into their support groups whenever the time in history and wherever country on earth you are speaking of.

Also, why do you keep citing the experiences of single fathers? You're not a single father, are you? My understanding from what you said is that you were a young male child carer who invaded support groups for mothers of young children.

I have no problem with the idea of you or other men seeking out women for child-rearing advice. I don't think any woman would have a problem with this. I have had child-rearing convos with many men. Some of the child-rearing experts I learned the most from - Spock, Gessell, Brazelton, Ferber - were men. My children's pediatricians were men. Some of their most knowledgable nursery, kindergarten and early education teachers were men.

What I have a problem with is you thinking that coz there were no fathers' groups or male childcarers' groups where you lived it was your right to horn in on groups specifically for mothers. And you rationalizing this by telling yourself that coz you're gay and don't get sexually aroused by breastfeeding, this meant none of the women in those groups you invaded could possibly have felt discomfort with your presence there. Talk about projection and colonization! I have many gay male friends I have shared intimate details of my life with, and some of whom have worked in child care; still, if any of them had shown up at any of the new mothers' groups or breastfeeding support groups I once went to, I would've been appalled by their chutzpah - and said get the hell out.

It was not considered as normal for fathers to spend a lot of time with their kids, especially when country was very poor after USSR disbanding

So what? Why does that give you the right to horn in on mother's groups?

Also, what countries specifically are you speaking of? You are so cagey about where you're coming from, so to speak, that I get the sense you are constantly moving the goalposts.

You seem to think that no one here has any idea of how geographically and culturally vast and varied the countries that were in the Soviet sphere that where affected when the USSR and the Berlin Wall collapsed. That we'd not know that someone who grew up in Siberia would have had a totally different experience to someone from Srebrenica.

Please be aware that to be understood on a worldwide internet forum where no one can see you or hear your native tongue or accent, you've got to give an indication of what your age is and what country (or longitude & latitude) you're from. You seem to be doing to the former Soviet sphere countries what people do to all of the states and territories within US: pretend that they are all one and the same and entirely homogenous.

[–]worried19[S] 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm extremely relieved. I was bracing myself for a negative outcome, so this is much better than expected. I just hope some of what's happening in the UK will trickle over to the USA. American doctors are doing things much more extreme than anything that has ever been allowed in England. People here are starting to wake up, but we're much further behind.

[–]CatbugMods allow rape victim blaming in this sub :) 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Good. Finally the welfare of children is being put ahead of the emotions of adults who are transgender and insist medically experimenting on these kids is the only way.

It was horrific to see concern for kids being brushed off as hatred or a preference for a dead kid over a trans one as a way of sidelining the real medical answers nobody has.

Hopefully this starts happening elsewhere as well, but I am concerned that there will be black market providers finding more business or prey upon children. (More than it already does)

[–]SilverSlippers 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm glad.

I think the age for hormones & other medical transition should be 18. Children cannot consent to irreversible medical procedures & drugs. I think people who were pushed to transition as children & later detransition as adults should be compensated somehow for the pain and stress they went through.

[–]PassionateIntensity 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

[–]questioningtw 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

l am glad. This never should have been allowed to happen, and they should have predicted that some people would regret this.

[–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I’m proud of her for speaking out and I hope more will follow. I’m not sure how I feel about decisions about who should get blockers falling to courts, but it’s better than Tavistock just giving them to everyone. I feel like we need to go back to earlier models for treating kids that allow them time to desist without interference. We shouldn’t be basing these decisions on how trans adults feel about it.

Edit: Also, we need more research specifically about trans females. As usual, there is a data gap that favors males and the way we treat males may not be how we should treat females.

[–]worried19[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

We need better research for sure. Gender dysphoria in males and females appears to manifest in dramatically different ways.

I’m not sure how I feel about decisions about who should get blockers falling to courts, but it’s better than Tavistock just giving them to everyone.

A huge part of the problem is that the children are not actually being treated. These clinics are not engaged in "watchful waiting." They're engaged in active affirmation of the trans identity, with no investigation whatsoever into past abuse, trauma, or mental health issues. Bell had issues like that which were completely ignored and left unaddressed.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

this law only effects the poor who are least capable of navigating the court system

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Not true. This decision affects both the NHS and private practitioners in the UK, as well as HCPs prescribing from abroad who write scrips to be filled in the the UK. The clinicians are the ones who will have to seek a court order to prescribe PBs to minors, not the kids they are treating. The class and current financial status of the kids being treated are immaterial.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

If you don’t think that middle class and rich people don’t have options that poor people don’t then you’re mistaken

[–]MarkTwainiac 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Sure, people with financial means can doctor-shop amongst private practitioners in the UK, or go outside the country like Susie Green did to put her son on puberty blockers and CSHs.

But in most cases, prescriptions written by doctors operating outside the UK will still have to be filled by regulated UK pharmacies. Which are already on the alert to orgs like Gender GP, operating outside the UK, trying to get around the ruling. I imagine pharmacies - if only coz their insurance companies force them to - will be putting in place extra controls to flag up when these drugs are being prescribed to kids and to make sure the treatment is legit. As happens in the case of other drugs, like morphine.

Also, in the UK, GPs will be on notice to detect the signs of PB and CSH use amongst their minor patients.

This ruling is just the beginning of more stringent efforts to protect young people in England and Wales.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This ruling is a temporary abberation from a country that the conservatives are running into the ground. When Labour gets back in power the pendulum will swing the other way, against bigotry

[–]MezozoicGaygay male 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think it is a good thing, and will save a lot of lives. With presented data, it means that between 25% to 75% (and 90% by their own older data) of kids would not trans otherwise, so this huge amount of kids get their lifes ruined.

Girls especially, as girls can start transition at any age and pass very well, because testosterone overrides estrogen and makes changes irreversible. Basically boy is formed when SRY gene activates and activates Testosterone in body of a kid when mother is still pregnant with this kid, and activates anti-Mullerian hormone, which destroys female reproduction organs. Puberty blockers work differently on boys and girls, much more strongly harming girls, stopping their puberty forever (not pausing it). So for girls pre-18 treatment is not needed at all.

And understanding of choice is important as well, because of 53% of kids treated by Tavistock had parents with borderline personality disorder: https://dacemirror.sci-hub.se/journal-article/e6ae002dcd151e2c7e5144036e11527f/marantz1991.pdf

Such parents (predominantly mothers) were always abusing their kids and trying to make kids "better self" or "what I always wanted to be", or using kids as an accessory to brag for other parents. So transing kid was solely their solution, most likely, and it is child abuse from such parents.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Sucks that the court authorization is the bar rather than psychiatric analysis of ability to give informed consent but the court decision seems fine enough I guess. Informed consent is a good line and they leave open the door for under 16 if they can meet the test.

[–]Porcelain_QuetzalTabby without Ears 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

I'm sad and angry. While puberty blockers are a sensitive topic I don't think the courts should get involved in medical decisions. Judges don't have the expertise to make that decision. This will lead to judges either making decisions for political reasons, thus preventing treatment for those who need it or theyll leave the decision to an expert opinion which is most likely positive but costly for the paitent.

This means that transition is likely to be gatekept by either location [and thus the deciding judge] or money. A situation we have with name changes in my country.

[–]MarkTwainiac 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

The UK judges who'll be making these decisions actually do have the expertise to gauge whether a minor has the capacity to consent - and also to weigh the medical evidence presented to them. The law in the UK is very big on child protection, including in medical matters. Judges who specialize in this area really know their stuff, and are quite measured and erudite. As the novel and move "The Children's Act" and the judgments in the Charlie Gard case show.

[–]Porcelain_QuetzalTabby without Ears 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I don't doubt that they are judges with experience in the UK. It's the same in Germany. All of the judges who deal with this stuff have experience in the field. This does not mean that they don't treat trans people vastly different. Getting a name change in Bavaria is a nightmare due to judges handling the cases beeing sexist as fuck. In more liberal states like Hamburg or Berlin it's really simple, maybe even to simple.

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

What does getting a name change in certain jurisdictions in Germany have to do with kids in the UK being prescribed drugs that will cause them irreversible damage and puts them to be on the road to other medical interventions that will permanently change them such as CSH and double mastectomies - and which will leave them sterile, sexually dysfunctional, behind their peers in development, as well as with lowered bone density, IQ and impaired cognitive abilities?

This does not mean that they don't treat trans people vastly different

Who are these "trans people" you speak of? How are we to spot them? Sounds like you think children can be trans as much as adults can. But trans isn't an inherent state of being. Transitioning is a choice some people make for various reasons, and which should be open only to adults with fully developed brains who've had lots of therapy.

What's been happening in the UK (and many other places) is that children who are deemed to like "the wrong" toys, clothing, playmates, interests and fantasies for their sex are being punished for their failure to conform to the rigid, regressive sex stereotypes of the adults around them by being put on harmful drugs and a medical pathway that will leave these children sterile, sexually dysfunctional, prone to heart disease and cancers, with lowered bone density and IQ and all sorts of other negative health effects, including mutilation via surgery.

[–]Porcelain_QuetzalTabby without Ears 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Actually a lot more then you might think. Both involve a court deciding something related to our lives. And so I expect the system to have the same issues I lined out in my previous post.

What exactly is that therapy meant to accomplish and why would you need lots of it? Also yes. I believe that kids can be trans, as in dysphoric and wanting to transition. Sure they aren't trans men or women, but they can be as transsexual.

Those are some big allegations. Why would you force someone to transition as punishment? What are they supposed to learn from that?

[–]MarkTwainiac 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You don't seem to have any understanding of child and adolescent development. Children and adolescents aren't simply small adults.

[–]Porcelain_QuetzalTabby without Ears 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

What exactly makes you thin that? My knowledge is a bit rusty since Its been a few years since I actively worked with children, but I'm still pretty knowledgeable about the basics of adolescent development.

[–]FlippyKingSadly this sub welcomes rape apologists and victim blaming. Bye! 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

The problem, now exposed by this trial, is not that judges were making any decisions but that no one seems to take responsibility for making a decision. The trial shows there were not real "adults" in terms of doing things responsibly. The court wanted records of all sorts of basic stats the GIDS should be keeping, they produced none. This is not a case of a judge making a decision and usurping authority from those better qualified. The judge saw that there was no "informed consent" going on, and there was no effort by the GIDS staff to understand what was going on either with the kids coming in or after they left. They could not even provide stats regarding the outcome from putting kids on dangerous drugs used in an experimental off-label manner (edited for clarity) or how many of these teen-aged guinea pigs when on to get SRS.

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Also, this was not a decision made by one judge. The case was decided by a panel of judges. It's just that one particular judge wrote up the decision. This is customary practice in the UK and many other countries, such as the USA.

[–]Porcelain_QuetzalTabby without Ears 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

I didn't assume that judges were making any decisions. I agree that some gatekeeping is necessary when talking about minors. My concern is more about the kind of gatekeeping beeing done here. Involving judges just doesn't have any tangible benefit over getting a recommendation by an actual expert in the field. Heck make these a few and regulate who gets to write these. I simply expect more issues to come out from having judges make these decisions, as I laid out, then when not involving them. So I agree with the spirit of the ruling but not the letter.

[–]MarkTwainiac 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

You don't seem to have any clue about child safeguarding - an area that the UK is a world leader in. I suggest looking into the UK's Children's Act, as well as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The novel and movie "The Children's Act" are also worth looking into.

Also, it's not the case that the judges are the ones making the decisions in these cases. The judges are brought in to be a neutral, quizzical third party to assess whether the clinicians/parents are acting in the child's best interests, and whether the child can or cannot consent. This is basic safeguarding, not "gatekeeping." And the judges always consult and take evidence from experts in the field in each case. They don't do this off the cuff.

A clinic like the GIDS should be doing safeguarding and ethics reviews in house - it's a statutory and moral duty. But as anyone familiar with what's been going on at GIDS knows, a large number clinicians there as well as governors have said there is no ethical oversight or attempt to do evidence-based treatment. What's more, the GIDS safeguarding head is suing GIDS for not allowing her to do her job.

Judicial oversight happens all the time in cases involving children and family matters, such as divorce. Even when divorcing parents come to custody, parenting and financial agreements, a judge - and usually temporary guardians ad litems appointed by the court to represent the kids' - still has/have to review the arrangements to make sure the children's rights aren't being violated.

Same thing goes when a lone parent travels internationally with their children. It's quite customary for a mother or father traveling alone with their kids to be pulled aside at airports/borders by immigration officials and the kids and parent to interrogated separately, so as to insure that the adult has the legal right to take the children cross borders and isn't trying to spirit them away into another jurisdiction to keep them from the other parent illegally. This happened to me several times when I had young kids. I never took offense at it; I took it as a welcome sign that the officials were doing their duty to protect my children's rights.

[–]Porcelain_QuetzalTabby without Ears 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Honestly I started reading the document, but I can't be bothered to read pages of laws that don't apply to the discussion and are from a country I particularly care about. If you want to point me to any specific paragraphs from the law then I'd be much obliged.im aware of the UN convention however. I think the most relevant articles are 12, and 24. Thou I'd argue that 24 can be used to argue both in favor as well as in opposition of gatekeeping. This leaves us with 12 which is inconclusive as well given that it only states that the child's interests and opinion should be considered in any matter regarding the child. Which could be used to argue in favor of the clinics method, but since I don't agree with them I won't do that. If I have overlooked anything, then feel free to point that out.

Maybe you should look into the process of name change in Germany, which I used for comparison and follows exactly this process and still has the issues I outlined, since it involves judges who, beeing part of the political system - beeing appointed by the politician - does that to you - won't necessarily decide in the patients best interests.

I don't see how divorce or immigration are more applicable examples than the one I gave. A child transitioning isn't a family matter.

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I can't be bothered to read pages of laws that don't apply to the discussion and are from a country I particularly care about.

Yet you feel qualified to opine about this case from the UK.

Your assertion that "I can't be bothered to read pages of laws" pertaining to child safeguarding doesn't reflect well on you.

[–]Porcelain_QuetzalTabby without Ears 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I'm not arguing about the legalities of the case. My only gripe with it is the following.

Even in cases involving teenagers under 18 doctors may need to consult the courts for authorisation for medical intervention

Im opposed to having courts and thus a political system involved in medical treatment on a practical basis. Not a legal one. So I don't see how knowing the intrecacies of these laws would change that stance. My issue isn't with the safeguarding itself. I actually agree that it is necessary. I just don't think that involving the courts in these cases has additional benefits compared to a solution within the nhs.

[–]FlippyKingSadly this sub welcomes rape apologists and victim blaming. Bye! 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

gatekeeping implies keeping someone way from something desirable, where what is truly desirable requires actual informed consent of which minors or the mentally challenged or the mentally ill are not capable of. This is keeping kids away from ruining their bodies, ie themselves, from their mental development to their physical development while messing up their social development as the kids around them go through normal puberty all for an untested and foolish hope that puberty can be put off. Gatekeeping is the wrong term. Protection for harm, or safeguarding, are better terms. The court asked for a range of statistics and the clinic provided none. There was no safeguarding going on, no assessment of how these off-label and experimental uses of drugs affected the kids they were giving them to and no assessment of even how many went on to get SRS. There was no safeguarding and no gatekeeping either. The court simply did what the so-called professionals refused to do.

[–]Porcelain_QuetzalTabby without Ears 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Wether you call it gatekeeping or protection its goal is the sale thing. Keeping minors who don't need to transition away from transition. The only difference here is perspective. Wether you argue from the side of those that have to transition aka transsexuals, or those who desist and thus would be protected by the added burocracy. I could argue your points in reverse for trans kids, but I think you can easily enough imagine that yourself. So regardless of wether you call it gatekeeping or protection, we both agree that some is necessary. Our biggest difference seems to be the kind oand amount of bureaucracy added to the process. Still waiting for any points that adress my concerns regarding this.

[–]FlippyKingSadly this sub welcomes rape apologists and victim blaming. Bye! 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

See, that's that thing: calling it gatekeeping or calling it safe guarding does treat the goals as two different things. That's why "gatekeeping" is the activist's preferred term, because it makes it sound comparable to a narrow-minded member of a fandom keeping out fans the narrow-minded don't like. Calling it safe guarding acknowledges the reality that these are children who have no idea what it means to ruin their bodies and their health in the long term over the very questionable idea that some inner identity can properly conflict with outward reality and that the inner identity is somehow "gendered" in a way that mimics what has always been seen as sexed differences and that uses those terms to abrogate the ability to described sexed differences.

Similarly, you make three assumptions that can not be proved or tested, about: 1) the existence of minors who need to transition; 2) the idea that there is some way to discern those from all other minors; 3) that this sensed "need" to transition can be isolated and assessed from other contributing (comorbidity) factors that may be overriding. The child who could be better off transitioning, where that is the sole or over-riding cause of their dilemma, can not be later shown to have been that even if they choose that path years later (edited for clarity because it's an easy sentence to make very confusing), because the decision made at that later time will be influenced by their experiences over that time. Another bad assumption you make is around the idea that a choice that appears correct and reasonable at one point in a persons life may later turn out to be the wrong choice. Making what may appear to be the best choice at one time may turn out to be the wrong turn, and the simple fact that the impact these drugs will have on a kid's life is not known makes it questionable they are ever the right choice. Trans activists are essentially lying when they say someone turns out to not be truly trans if they change their mind (or if they just reflect badly on their cause), and this reflects the ever-shifting goal posts between the idea of a fixed and gendered inner identity and the idea of a fluid spectrum of gendered identities.

If those somehow describe your points, they can not be addressed because they can not be assessed by anyone in a position to provide safeguarding. But your points willfully ignore the simple fact that the trial shows that there was no safe guarding going on and no data kept so that these experimental treatments were: better targeted towards those who need them, or not thrust upon kids who simply didn't know any better and assumed from what they heard from others about what they needed.

Your point seems to be based around the idea that these drugs should be placed in a public place so that people who want to use them off-label to monkey around with the onset of puberty can just get them in the hopes that those who would benefit from them can get them. Your point seems to have complete disregard for those who would benefit from not getting them. Your point seems somehow ignorant of the fact that these drugs are prescription drugs only given when a health professional determines they are actually needed is the only way to legally get these drugs. Should someone who browses a prostate cancer on-line forum just get luporon if they think what they read describes their situation? No, that would be stupid. But somehow a kid with autism, which Tavistock would have us believe the don't screen for, or who does not conform to gendered expectations of their parents, or who has other mental problems that they can not make sense of, should just get these drugs? Your point seems to ignore what can be known by those who prescribe the drugs, seems ignorant of how little any teenager or younger person can know about themselves and how they fit into the world, and seems ignorant of what "off-label" use of drugs means. So, I don't plan on addressing your points unless you find away to make them in away that can be addressed. Your concerns must be someone's call, and the trial showed that it was no responsible person's call. There was no safeguarding and no gate keeping.

[–]Porcelain_QuetzalTabby without Ears 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Anyways. As I have said the terms gatekeeping and safeguarding describe the same thing: rules that let those in who need it and keep those out who don't. I don't like arguing over semantics, but I think the term gatekeeping is more applicable in this situation, because getting judges involved any time another trans child below 16 seeks treatment just adds another imo unessecsry step. Because what data are these judges going to rely on. They aren't experts in the field and likely don't have the time do an in depth screening. I'm assuming they'll ask actual psychologists. If theyre going to ask them anyway you can just cut out the middle man. I have proposed this in my previous post, since I think that some gatekeeping or safeguarding is necessary. Getting courts involved just doesn't give any significant benefits, besides added costs and a dependency on the political climate in the UK. I'm not as you think, in favor of putting drugs for off label use in a public place so those who want to get access to it. I actually never said anything remotely like that. So that whole last paragraph actually addresses none of my concerns.

Also "off label" doesn't mean a lot. It just means that the manufacturer hasn't paid to test their medication for this use case in this country. In my country off Label drugs [cytotec] are given during child birth, heck all of the ones im currently using are beeing prescribed off label. It's not the big "experiment on harmless children" you make it out to be.

Honestly writing my response I feel like you're misunderstanding the issue I have with the topic. It's not that there was a trial. Its not the court mandated that safeguarding be done. It's the kind of gatekeeping that's beeing implemented, which I take issues with. Something your entire response unfortunately doesn't adress. I can gather from it that you seem to be opposed to children transitioning in any capacity, which I completely disagree with. There is no reasonable assumption that some kids wouldn't benefit from transition and that the issues of screening for them can't be solved in some capacity.

[–]FlippyKingSadly this sub welcomes rape apologists and victim blaming. Bye! 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I really think you are either being disingenuous or you really did not read and understand the reason this legal action was taken by Tavistock's victims nor understand just how badly the defense portrayed themselves.

The side effects of Luporon should make you take the off-label use of that drug more seriously, but you clearly are not interested in that. To dismiss the testing needed to determine if a drug is safe is reckless and it is obvious you don't have any expertise in what that entails. The drug safety does not assess how safe a drug is compared to say a placebo but how safe it is considering that doing nothing might well be expected to lead to death from the disease, such as prostate cancer which Luporon is used for. The damage done by the drug to the older person with prostate cancer is compared to the damage done by the cancer and the age matters. To pretend it is no big deal that a drug used on old people and tested with that in mind is being used on adolescents shows a profound ignorance on your part.

Your issue with the topic is really your own ignorance of the trial and how it showed there was no safeguarding going on. That which you would prefer is what should have been done, but wasn't. The matter behind this was: did the clinic fail in their role of safe guarding Keira Bell when they considered if she should get these drugs. The answer is clearly yes, and more than that the court concluded that there likely can not be any "informed consent" that these kids are capable of. That you obviously ignore. Do you think that the kids are capable of it? The defense didn't even really try to demonstrate that, they put kids up who showed the opposite-- that they were kids thinking like kids.

It most certainly is the big experment on children you pretend it isn't and without testing you can't say it isn't. Basically when you say "It's not the big 'experiment on harmless children' you make it out to be" are are flat-out lying because you can not possibly know that. This experiement on children has not been gone on long enough and Tavistock didn't keep records to find out what the results of this experiment was. If that doesn't bother you, you have your priorities wrong. The bottom line still is, these kids who come in to the clinic because they suspect they are trans (Please, define that. What is trans, what causes it, and what are the solutions, and why is some innner sense of identity "gendered"? That has to be firmly established before giving kids drugs comes close to sounding reasonable) have to assessed to see if that is true and if other factors are not the biggest problems they face. It may turn out that even if the get the drugs and go through all the steps, the other factors may lead to the same disastrous outcome-- suicide-- that is the big fear now. You have to assess which path leads to the most damage physically and psychologically, to the entire population that walks into that clinic: being cautious and assessing and dealing with all the comorbidities, or what is obviously your preference of leave the drugs on a table with a sign saying "take these, you might be fine".

But, you need to accept that there was no gate-keeping nor safeguarding and court is not stepping in to do it on a case by case basis, but they instead concluded that informed consent (which can only be a choice given to a kid after the safeguarding and due diligence is done) is likely not even possible. The court is not doing what you think they are doing. They simply saw nothing was being done and that nothing was being done in spite of the law being clear that safeguarding must be done (otherwise these "professionals" would not be professionals in a profession with professional standards and legal obligations, and it would all be one big hobby) and the court concluded that the informed consent, the end point of the due diligence and safe guarding for any kid that they would consider giving the drugs to, is probably not even possible with this.

But, if you haven't read what actually happened at the trial you probably won't now-- or you're being disingenuous. I think we can agree to disagree though as we're repeating ourselves.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

Fucking horrifying. We’ll be seeing more suicides as a direct result

[–]CatbugMods allow rape victim blaming in this sub :) 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Do you have anything to support that prediction?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

My own view on the situation as informed by being suicidal and trans

[–]CatbugMods allow rape victim blaming in this sub :) 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

So no, just an opinion

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I mean it’s not really an opinion, it’s a prediction

[–]CatbugMods allow rape victim blaming in this sub :) 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That you have based on your opinion...

[–]MezozoicGaygay male 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Most likely less, as suicide rate is raising for post-transition people.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You have no idea what you’re talking about

[–]Porcelain_QuetzalTabby without Ears 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Hey mate. Please try to keep your debates factual and engage points not people. Ad hominem isn't a great look.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That wasn’t an ad hominem. As hominem is attacking an unimportant attribute of a person

[–]FlippyKingSadly this sub welcomes rape apologists and victim blaming. Bye! 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

The only suicides we should be seeing an increase in should be from the staff who were shown by this trial to not even keep basic records of their victims, and who presented as witnesses teenagers who clearly didn't understand what they were losing by going on these dangerous drugs. The defense took no responsibility for their actions and presented nothing to show they were acting responsibility. If you have a problem with the results of this trial, you should turn your ire to the staff who clearly failed the children they have been experimenting on and then ignoring.

Do you really think not getting drugs will result in suicide? That sounds like drug addict thinking. These people need mental health social support, not experimental drugs used to monkey around with the most natural process of growing up our species has. Puberty sucks for most people, avoiding it is not an answer and threatening suicide, in your case threatening the suicide of others which reflects poorly on you, points to a mental health or social adjustment problem but not to an identity or gendered identity problem.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

You have no idea what you’re talking about

[–]FlippyKingSadly this sub welcomes rape apologists and victim blaming. Bye! 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Did you read any of what happened at this trial? What am I wrong about?

Also, do you claim to know what you're talking about? What are your qualifications? You claim somewhere in this thread that you're suicidal. That's not a qualification and in fact it is a dis-qualification. What does it mean to be suicidal? It means someone is considering the circumstances of their life and considering that it is not worth continuing because they find reality unacceptable. That is a desperate place to be, but reality is not known for negotiation. Those who do not accept reality, and thus see suicide as option, are not qualified to really discuss anything because reality just is and acceptance/non-acceptance is not a option. Especially if we are to consider that a conflict between one's body and one's notion of some inner identity that is somehow gendered is what supposedly causes the state of being suicidal.

So, you saying I have no idea what I'm talking about carries very little weight considering the source.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

The fact that you’re supporting bigotry that will cause trans kids harm means that you don’t know what you’re talking about. It’s like conversion therapy, if you’re queer you know it’s a bad idea that doesn’t work and instead harms people. You don’t need studies to show that

[–]FlippyKingSadly this sub welcomes rape apologists and victim blaming. Bye! 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No bigotry here, you're just making stuff up.