I think someone attempting to portray the frustration at communicating with a poster that actually made no effort to engage beyond their own decision to not read content because that discussion is best left to the experts as a ‘zero sum bias’ is perhaps displaying their own bias here. Offering sympathy to a poster who came to offer an opinion of ‘the experts know best’ while ignoring the experts who are pointing to the issues seems to be rather downplaying the actions of that poster. That is absolutely fine, but that does need to be acknowledged.
I believe the treatment for precocious puberty with these drugs still has potential significant side effects but so much has been learned in women’s voices being heard about the damage to their bodies long term to shape the treatment standards used today. As a pp kindly explained up thread. Treating precocious puberty though, is nothing like what is happening to stop puberty from happening in this cohort. One is slowing down bodies natural process that was happening too early, the other is preventing that process to happen altogether or preventing it from progressing.
Why has a group in society been allowed to be experimented on removing the bodies maturing process, in a completely healthy body, when fundamentally this has been done for appearance? It is a form of extreme body modification that then results in a lifetime medical patient.
What other group of people would this kind of treatment be viewed as acceptable? or ethical? And yet, there are many ways to dismiss what is happening. One is to assert that there will be rare cases where this should happen. This is a position considered one of moderation, positioning any other position as extreme.
And yet, it is unworkable completely. Because who decides which rare case will benefit here, what defines that rare case to be a worthy recipient vs others? Or is the issue as many of us has been pointing to wildly, that the system is broken and those very same experts considered expert enough to listen to who state these drugs are safe, are a major part of the issue in the first place?
So, why do some people use those terms of ‘rare cases’? To make themselves feel like they are the kind ones, the ones who are, to them, not extreme or intolerant.
When the reality is, it is not a ‘kind’ position for the children left open to these treatments supported by some people either unable or unwilling to read and to analyse the information before casting their opinion about ‘being moderate’. Talking about the ‘rare cases’ is an empty platitude when you are discussing the treatment of children with healthy bodies.