"Trans people have always been here!"

And this gets to the heart of the debate about whether puberty blockers can ever be ethical - using puberty blockers to treat precocious puberty is a medical intervention protocol designed to bring bring the puberty of someone with a developmental defect as much into alignment with normal puberty as possible. This contrasts with trans usage where they are used to delay (and really we must be honest here - intentionally disrupt) natural puberty. i.e. using them for the opposite purpose.

You will often hear trans people make the claim that cis children are being allowed puberty blockers to treat puberty but trans children (because of hateful discrimination) are disallowed them for treating puberty. This is as silly claiming that Ozempic is provided to overweight people to treat eating disorders but denied anorexic people, because of prejudice, for treating eating disorders.

But as the recent Peggie verdict shows, transgender misuse of language has a powerful effect on people's ability to reason about trans topics even in the formal situation of law.

It’s astroturfing. There is one global agenda driven organisation for “trans healthcare” and everyone else just repeats their pronouncements.

Yeah…. no, I don’t think so. Not in the UK, anyway.

This view is contrary to a global consensus of experts & organisations in the field.

How so?

Its a global consensus amongst expert medical practitioners/organisations in the field.

Lots of treatments that have no evidence base are refused to everyone. Puberty blockers for sex dysphoria is a treatment that lacks evidence, with very serious side effects. So it's not available to anyone.

Puberty blockers for precocious puberty has some good evidence for being an effective treatment, and because the timeline is very restricted negative side effects are less serious. Although there are in fact strict protocols because of the potential harms and recently some have thought they might actually outweigh the benefits.

This is basic stuff, if you are struggling with how doctors decide what kinds of treatments are medically appropriate you might need to consider you don't have any basis to make comparisons.

And I am pointing out your logic is not consistently applied.

I think you first have to establish that puberty blockers are necessary healthcare for trans-identifying children before you can assert that the failure to provide them is an inconsistency in providing necessary healthcare.

That's not something widely accepted.

I'm comparing the fact that children being provided with necessary healthcare isn't consistently applied.

Here's a couple one being a systemic review. There are many more. Whether they are conducted in the UK is irrelevant as is other universal forms of male violence.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6830990/#:~:text=Introduction,2015)%20define%20transgender%20as%20follows:
https://bpb-us-e2.wpmucdn.com/sites.uci.edu/dist/0/1149/files/2013/06/Transgender-Inmates-in-CAs-Prisons-An-Empirical-Study-of-a-Vulnerable-Population.pdf

Are "trans" children with precocious puberty not allowed puberty blockers then?

Or are you in fact comparing two completey different things?

Yes, they aren't quite the same.

I don't think those kinds of programs have anything to do with equal opportunity though. They don't care if their adjustments give extra advantages to kids with helful parents and high salaries, and disadvantage kids with no money from foster care, They only care about equity in terms of certain specific measured outcomes, between the groups they define.

At the level of the concrete individual it can be massively opposed to any recognition of them as a real person who should be treated fairly, all that matters are abstract outcomes for entities that have no concrete reality.

I suspect when they look at trans rights (so called) its similar, nothing to do with individual rights at all really. It's about outcomes for some abstraction, and that can be any group they decide to define. Access to rights in this way of thinking is about belonging to some group, and groups competing for access.

It's a totally differernt paradigm.

Trans women being violently physically assaulted & raped is well documented.

Can you please present some UK statistics, and can you also please highlight if they were assaulted and raped because they are trans or if they were assaulted and raped and just happened to be trans?

Trans minors are not restricted from puberty blockers for precocious puberty either, so there's no discrimination.

The point is trans minors are restricted from health care but other minors are not.

If that evidence existed, it would be easy to present it to lawmakers in a bid to have the law changed. Instead, activists are reduced to an appeal to feelings: "They feel like women! Be kind!"

The evidence is well documented from prisons but it does not necessarily follow that evidence existing persuades law makers particularly if they are incentivised not to. In any case, trans women being accepted in female prison estates has long been done so for their safety not their 'feelings'. Anyone who would imagine trans women aren't at an increased risk of sexual assault in prisons particularly if they have physically transitioned is deluding themselves.

So has syphilis. It's not much of an endorsement.

it is because minors aren't restricted from other health care like puberty blockers for precocious puberty.

Trans minors are not restricted from puberty blockers for precocious puberty either, so there's no discrimination.

Trans women being violently physically assaulted & raped is well documented.

If that evidence existed, it would be easy to present it to lawmakers in a bid to have the law changed. Instead, activists are reduced to an appeal to feelings: "They feel like women! Be kind!"

Not all trans people suffer from gender dysphoria as in they might want to live as the opposite gender but not be distressed about their body parts to the point where it becomes an illness.

Because they are minors, not because they are trans. So that's not trans discrimination.

it is because minors aren't restricted from other health care like puberty blockers for precocious puberty.

Not quite. It becomes the law's problems when there's evidence of harm happening. There's absolutely no evidence whatsoever that trans women are at risk of harm if they use the men's toilets, so there's no reason for the law to get involved.

Trans women being violently physically assaulted & raped is well documented.

Yes, there have always been men who think they are women.

I would disagree. Transgenderism is actually a quite new phenomena; it was the result of biomedical advances that lead to the availability of 'sex-change' surgeries and hormone administration. These developments captured the imagination of a small number of men who came to believe that it would allow them, in some meaningful way, to become the opposite sex. I.e. it was the possibility that created the phenomena. That's why the very earliest examples to undergo the surgery and hormone therapy were homosexual men with complex reasons for wanting to undergo the treatment, while later it was primarily heterosexuals men with a clear erotic interest in it who sought the treatment.

Cross dressing and homosexuality are well documented in the historical record, but transexualism (or the euphemistic transgenderism) is not. In fact the lack of clear examples of it is rather conspicuous.

Transgender people campaigned extremely hard to have gender dysphoria removed from being a requirement of being a transgender person (as well as trying to remove the term transsexual).

Which strangely enough upset a lot of transsexual people as it removed part of their identity and erased what they are whilst allowing a lot of people just to say that they are trans.

Its also quite interesting to note that one of the goals of being a transsexual was to pass as the sex that they "identified" as. (and was probably why very few women had an issue with them)

Whereas now a transgender person looks like a transgender person and are often fully intact and in many/some cases look like a mockery of female stereotypes.

They probably have more access to health care than non trans people. You can’t have free electrolysis, boob jobs etc unless you are trans. I wonder if that is discrimination against people with the protected characteristic of non gender reassignment.

The access to toilets issue is probably the same as anyone else uncomfortable using multiple user toilets, if you had OCD or disliked peeing with other people to hear, that sort of thing. It’s basically a you problem. Get over it or find suitable toilets.

Trans minors are restricted from access to puberty blockers.

Because they are minors, not because they are trans. So that's not trans discrimination.

Access to appropriate basic ammenities becomes the law's problem if there are potential harms involved like physical abuse.

Not quite. It becomes the law's problems when there's evidence of harm happening. There's absolutely no evidence whatsoever that trans women are at risk of harm if they use the men's toilets, so there's no reason for the law to get involved.

Trans minors are restricted from access to puberty blockers.

Access to appropriate basic ammenities becomes the law's problem if there are potential harms involved like physical abuse.