How should we treat trans people?

Nobody said that EVERYONE can recognize a trans person did they? I said I can. And I can. Always.

You know, as a parent, that makes me feel queasy. I can't get my head around the enormity of this whole cult of experimenting on children.

EmpressLesbianInChair
Good point about them being over the age of consent. That'll be an added bonus for some types of people

What does it matter if some people pass anyway? They haven't changed sex. And the times we are living in now, not 20 years down the line, we have men with a 5 o'clock shadow or even beards slapping on a bit of lippy and a skirt and claiming they are equivalent to women. It's just wrong. And there will likely always be people who fit into this category, however surgically and medically altered some trans people in the future will be.

So what is it exactly that interests you so much about the physical manifestations and passing?

Nothing apart from the insistence by some posters that everyone is always able to recognise a TM or TW.

I disagree that this is the case.

And what type of person would have an interest in people who have the bodies of children but are over the age of consent?

Someone who perhaps wants their child to stay a child for ever?

We'll end up with a class of humans that are sterile and childlike and have not been through puberty, they may not be recognisably male or female.
Their IQ may be lowered because of puberty blockers, they may have no idea of informed consent about their bodies.
What type of person would have an interest in a childlike human with no boundaries?

This is ethnically wrong.
It goes against ‘first do no harm’ principles
It is largely untested and therefore with unknown physical and psychological side effects
It makes desistance difficult or impossible.
There is no evidence it helps GD.

So what is it exactly that interests you so much about the physical manifestations and passing?

Because the rights and wrongs seem pretty big deals to me.

The argument that you espouse, in its "but she acted older than she is" form, has been used by adult men to justify raping 14 year olds.and younger.

Bollocks have I said or even hinted at anything like that.
In fact show me where I've even suggested "she acted older than she is".

If you can't have any form of discussion without just making stuff up then what even is the point? Just continue in your hermetically sealed echo chamber.

Gillick competence cannot apply to puberty blockers.

Maybe it can be argued that no young person is Gillick competent for any procedure then? If they can't weigh the pros and cons for a procedure or treatment then how competent are they? (Didn't think it was still calked Gillick competent either, but that's by the by)

Comparing a 10 year old knowing the difference between right and wrong in, say, a case of theft or assault bears no resemblance to making a decision to be drugged and mutilated.

I'm not saying a child of 10 can make complex medical decisions necessarily. I'm saying that being able to give informed consent doesn't rely solely on having gone through puberty, which is what a pp said.

Puberty can occur between 8 - 16ish. So a 14 or 15 year old, who may not yet have gone through puberty would likely be considered competent to give consent for medical treatment based on factors other than having gone through puberty.

I was menstruating by nine, so your assertion that 10 is prepubescent is bollocks.

Great. For you 10 wasn't pre pubescent. For lots of other children 10,11,12 is still pre pubescent.

I was talking only about the physical manifestation of this process. Not the ethics around it.

Yes. I think a lot of people care more about the physical results than the ethics, that’s the problem.

And I don’t think a child can refuse life saving treatment.

They can refuse. It will be up to the drs, parents and possibly the court to decide how competent the child is to make that decision and will be based on many factors but it won't solely be based on whether they have gone through puberty or not, which is what the op said ie a child who hasn't gone through puberty dye to blockers will never be able to give informed consent

the law expects that a child's brain is sufficiently mature pre puberty for them to be responsible for their behaviour

Ok three things:

1. I was menstruating by nine, so your assertion that 10 is prepubescent is bollocks.
2. Criminal responsibility refers to knowing the difference between right and wrong, not the ability to understand complex and lifechanging medical procedures.
3. The argument that you espouse, in its "but she acted older than she is" form, has been used by adult men to justify raping 14 year olds.and younger.

children are able to give or refuse consent for medical procedures and their view will be considered by drs

Gillick competence only applies if the doctor reasonably believes that the child fully understands the consequences of the treatment. The original case concerned a girl seeking an abortion, which is a well-understood, safe procedure with predictable outcomes. Bearing in mind that I have just said "we don't know what will happen if a child's ability to make endogenous sex hormones is suppressed long-term or permanently whilst their genes carry on recombining with their X and Y chromosomes", Gillick competence cannot apply to puberty blockers.

Comparing a 10 year old knowing the difference between right and wrong in, say, a case of theft or assault bears no resemblance to making a decision to be drugged and mutilated.
We have rules and ethics around experimental medical treatment. Based on what we have, hopefully, learned from WW2 and Josef Mengele.
I am utterly horrified that we are even discussing the acceptability of this kind of experimentation on children.

wacademia

But those genes exist from before birth. What causes secondary sexual characteristics to develop during and after puberty? It must be the processes that occur during puberty. If you halt that then it stands to reason that you stop those changes from occurring.

I was talking only about the physical manifestation of this process. Not the ethics around it.

All that and what - you have created a child who will not mature? Why would anyone do that?

If you block puberty, remove the gonads and then give opposite sex hormones isn't it the case that the person will develop secondary sex characteristics of the sex they identify with

Sorry, late to the 40-page party. Can you run me by this statement again. Along with the facial feminisation thing.

So.
-You've blocked the hormones that enable a human to develop on their development pathway, which includes brain and body development.
-You've performed invasive surgery to remove a significant part of their sex-specific reproductive organs.
-You've given them hormones that correspond with the exact other sex category that they're not part of.

Before they're an adult?

But at least they won't develop a beard/low voice/muscle development so you won't be able to pick them out of a 'guess-who' line up of who's a woman, who's a man.

And that's cheer-worthy? because it will make it easier for the person to "pass" as an adult .

Invasive surgery. Un-evidenced meds. Potentially no sexual function.
A decreased pool of partners. Lifetime medication.

But at least you'll 'pass'.

Insane.

‘age of criminal responsibility in the UK is 10’ that’s not saying they have the maturity of an adult, just that they are old enough to know right from wrong.

And I don’t think a child can refuse life saving treatment.

So smell, facial features etc will develop in accordance with the sex hormones that are being administered rather than the sex hormones that would have been released by the body.

Are you sure? Because I'm not. I'm paging @BowlOfBabelfish for help with the science here because I'm not a biologist.

The authors of this rather impenetrable paper found that 6500 genes are expressed differently based on sex. I spotted the following:

"We found that three of these X-linked genes are located at pseudo-autosomal region 1 (PAR1), which undergoes relatively frequent recombination between the X and Y chromosomes and is known to escape X-inactivation."

I've bolded the bit that makes me doubt that altering a prepubescent child's hormones will stop all the secondary sexual characteristics. Some genes recombine with the X and Y chromosomes to express proteins, including peptide hormones. (As an aside: This sex-based recombination with sex chromosomes might help explain the distinctive physical appearance of people with some disorders of sexual development, e.g. the neck webbing associated with Turner syndrome.) Altering the hormones in the body won't stop that recombination from happening. We don't know what will happen if a child's ability to make endogenous sex hormones is suppressed long-term or permanently whilst their genes carry on recombining with their X and Y chromosomes. We don't know what will happen if that chold is given cross-sex hormones whilst their genes carry on recombining with their X and Y chromosomes. We don't know enough about genetics to predict what will happen.

What I do know, thanks to being occasionally involved with the kind of research that has to be approved by ethics committees, is that it's unethical to administer blockers to children of such young age when we don't even know fully what they do in adults.

But brains don't mature until they have gone through puberty. A child on puberty blockers will never be able to give informed consent.

I don't think that's true.

A) age of criminal responsibility in the UK is 10, so the law expects that a child's brain is sufficiently mature pre puberty for them to be responsible for their behaviour

B) children are able to give or refuse consent for medical procedures and their view will be considered by drs. This isn't dependent on them having gone through puberty.

I have read that it also has the effect of lowering iq.

Now isn’t that what every parent only every wants for their child - brittle bones, lower iq and immaturity?

Why would anyone want to put a child on untested life long medication that will stunt their growth, make their bones brittle, mean their brain won't reach its full maturity, and limit their sexual function, just so they can pass as the other sex? That cannot be right.
Cui bono?

But brains don't mature until they have gone through puberty. A child on puberty blockers will never be able to give informed consent.

I agree. But Susie Green & Mermaids don’t think that matters.

But brains don't mature until they have gone through puberty. A child on puberty blockers will never be able to give informed consent.