Red Flags and Radicals: A Detransitioner writes

That was based on no proper research at all, just myths.

Actually, the recommendation of Benjamin Spock, a very famous American paediatrician, played a significant role in this. His book recommended it, then continued to do so despite evidence to the contrary accumulating.

In this scenario however, I’m pretty confident that deciding not to offer the creation of a lifelong wound is something a surgeon will be criticised for in the future.

Individual stories are interesting, but can’t be used as scientific evidence.

They can as part of academic research - such as that that James Caspian wanted to do before his university shut him down

I do think that after thorough therapy and after establishing that it is the medically adviced path, SRS should be covered by universal health care.

Yes, I agree with this too.

That said, I don't see how want rather than need can apply in the UK context of universal healthcare so I would say Carey's argument here is US-specific

Yes, clearly, this only applies for 'out of pocket' treatment. (Personally, I do think that after thorough therapy and after establishing that it is the medically adviced path, SRS should be covered by universal health care.) And, obviously, an argument about age in these matters (25 instead of 18) can be made.And whatever the age that makes most sense to some bio-ethics panel, it should then also apply to things like voluntary sterilization. (Like: age of consent for irreversible, life changing elective procedures or so).

AnchorMum

My advice is just to skip past the posts by that sort of person. There is often still plenty to engage with.

LangCleg No problem!

That said, I don't see how want rather than need can apply in the UK context of universal healthcare so I would say Carey's argument here is US-specific.

But even in the US, unless someone is very wealthy indeed, health care is still provided communally via insurance, and insurance places at least some restrictions on providing people with what they "want" rather than what they "need", generally speaking, or the costs of insurance would be even more prohibitive than they already are.

It's people like Feminist4, and others like them, who stop me posting on a thread like this.

I start reading the thread and think yes, I have something to contribute, based on very personal experiences.

And then I read some of the gaslighting comments and don't feel safe to say anything.

There are many women on here who have real life experiences which would help open up the conversation and shed some light on what is happening in the real world.

Just getting through each day is so exhausting and challenging. There is little energy left to have to battle in this space with TRAs who demonstrate no sympathy, empathy or tolerance to any other view than their own.

kesstrel - apologies! I missed your post and basically said what you said!

There are plenty of doctors who operate outside of the realms of standard practice.

Which brings us back to the importance of proper research. And of course, sometimes current "standard practice" is either not the most optimal approach, or is positively dangerous. The recommendation to put babies on their stomachs to sleep, for example. That was based on no proper research at all, just myths.

In principle agree with Carey. You have to allow adults to make really bad choices.

Yes. She's talking about adults, not children, which is less of a challenge to me personally.

That said, I don't see how want rather than need can apply in the UK context of universal healthcare so I would say Carey's argument here is US-specific.

Also, yes, she's talking about adults. But, since cognitive development is not complete until about age 25, I think the NHS needs to have a very strong conversation about what constitutes an adult in this specific context.

(Also, no dig at you personally - just expressing deep, deep frustration.)

It’s not just about patients making the right decisions. It’s about doctors offering the right choices. There are plenty of doctors who operate outside of the realms of standard practice. Those who they treat call them pioneers. Their colleagues call them dangerous mavericks. I can think of several examples.

I'm also not sure I fully agree with "the importance of patient autonomy" as a principle that should always apply across the board.

There are a lot of circumstances where patients are not actually in an appropriate headspace to be able to be "autonomous" in any real sense. Dementia, mental illness, depression, delusions, fever, exhaustion, medical shock, mental shock, not to mention just being a child or adolescent all seriously impair the ability to make decisions and inform judgments. That doesn't mean patients wishes shouldn't be taken into account, just that they have to be balanced with more objective views in many situations. It's not as straightforward as some people like to think.

I give up. Waste of time. Let's just dance to other people's tunes all day long. That'll be fun.

Touche. In principle agree with Carey. You have to allow adults to make really bad choices. I am just not sure, whether there should be some professionally led self-exploration required or at least strongly encouraged (like 1-2 years of therapy) for stuff like life-changing, irreversible surgery. I'd prefer that to people signing away their rights to sue. (Maybe, if the doc is still convinced it is right but the adult patient is, then signing away the rights and going ahead anyway should be an option?).

Adults have the right to make decisions the people around them would call bad bets.

I don't know what the US situation is, regarding younger women obtaining sterilisation operations on request. But we shouldn't forget that here in the UK this is not an option. As long as that is the case, then we have a parallel for restricting access to genital reconstruction surgery for trans people.

I wonder whether over the next 50 years we will see a redefinition of the age at which people are regarded as "full" adults, moving more toward age 25 for certain things, in order to reflect what we now know about brain development. The process of becoming fully adult is much more long drawn out than we used to believe.

if medical interventions and medications are to be given to young people they should be subject to rigorous investigation regarding like long term outcome

I quite agree.

Refusing to countenance this, actively suppressing thorough research and pushing for the affirmation-only approach where we know there are people detransitioning, as well as those discovering that all is not always roses on the other side, is taking away freedom and informed consent from young people in order to push them down a single medical and ideological pathway. It is wholly unethical.

In every major life crossroads, there will be some who find later they took the wrong path. Or regret not taking a path. Men are particularly at risk from suicide in our society anyway so I suppose its not a surprie that young men denied their trans wishes are vulnerable to depression/suicidal thoughts.
For every major medical intervention no matter how vital, there will be those who suffer horrible physical or psychological fall out and come to bitterly regret that they had that done (whatever it is including cosmetic surgery, transition, or life saving ops).
For these reasons , proper research into transitional interventions and creating successful outcomes is a vital area.
My daughter needs back surgery. She is in pain now and they could do it tomorrow, but as it is a properly researched area of medicine, they are going to try and wait to minimize the number of surgeries she will need.
I know this seems a bit deraily, but my point is: if medical interventions and medications are to be given to young people they should be subject to rigorous investigation regarding like long term outcome.

I don’t believe many people on this board genuinely have children with gender dysphoria’s best interests at heart. I think they are being used as a weapon in a battle, without much genuine concern for their interests.

You can believe what you want. But it's absolute rubbish. You are inventing a false narrative about people's genuine concerns just being a front because you can't conceive of anyone having views that differ from yours and seeing problems that you are clearly incapable of seeing. (And you are the poster who said that a teenage girl uncomfortable about showering in front of a naked male-bodied person would be "transphobic" if I recall.) So this is your issue, not the posters here. Pure projection.

Well, I tried to get it back to what Carey said.

I give up. Waste of time. Let's just dance to other people's tunes all day long. That'll be fun.

I don’t believe many people on this board genuinely have children with gender dysphoria’s best interests at heart. I think they are being used as a weapon in a battle, without much genuine concern for their interests.

Not true. Many on here have underage kids and are scared they will be sucked into this pink brain/blue brain idea and/or limited by it. That transactivists discourage scientifically led discourse and research and try to sneak agendas into school that have the hallmarks of a cult, is not helpful.

I don’t believe many people on this board genuinely have children with gender dysphoria’s best interests at heart. I think they are being used as a weapon in a battle, without much genuine concern for their interests.

Well, feminist4 you made a general comment about phoney and unwelcome concern. Who exactly were you addressing? And why can I not respond as if it were me? Why don’t you engage with the substance of what is being said?

Young women are being failed in many ways and this is a feminist board. One of the ways is that discussion about gender dysphoria and its implications is being shit down. This affects young men too. No-one is saying they are perpetrators.

Gas-lighting and stonewalling is a form of control. I do not believe you are posting in good faith feminist4 and whatever troubles lead you to adopt this approach, I hope they resolve.

The thing about Serano's "detransition doesn't exist" claim is that it only takes one case to disprove. So, Julia, meet Carey.

Or, you know, be aware of. I like Carey and would not want to force her to sit down for a pint with someone as irritating as Serano.

Individual stories are interesting, but can’t be used as scientific evidence.

Which is why research into detransition, ROGD and so on is direly needed, no matter how much Julia Serano & Co scream to prevent it.

Let's just put it this way, if Mr Tumnus turns up I won't be entirely surprised.