Trans kids

[Macareaux]

This is an interesting article in a US publication about trans kids and rapid onset gender dysphoria.

After considering many aspects of the issue and anecdotal reports and data, the writer comes to the the conclusion that the distilled problem is that there is no way of determining which children are truly trans and which are not.

If we are to progress then sooner or later these mainstream writers are going to have to have the courage to say that there is no such thing as a transgender child.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/11/andrew-sullivan-hard-questions-gender-transitions-for-young.html

the WPATH standards have just been rewritten for implementation by 2023

Yes, guess who's been writing their care guidelines for prepubescent children?

Susie Green’s experience of helping her daughter change genders led her to become one of the most active champions of trans-rights, an issue which is growing in social and political salience and attracting more than its fair share of controversy as a result. She is currently involved in writing care guidelines for prepubescent children as a member of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health.

www.hsj.co.uk/comment/the-bedpan-gps-are-scared--i-dont-blame-them/7024816.article

@FrackOff I think it’s fairly obvious to all that I wasn’t quoting you directly. Apologies though if I’m jumping to the wrong conclusion and you are actually a “trans supporting” (your words) person who doesn’t believe that TWAW.

Puberty blockers frackoff, taken by children followed by cross sex hormones, make them sexually dysfunctional as adults.

Jazz Jennings vagina is made from male stomach lining. The alternative was a prepubescent penis which had never been erect or had an orgasm.

4thwavenow.com/2018/07/08/does-prepubertal-medical-transition-impact-adult-sexual-function/

Incredibly dispiriting article that suggests that there is zero research on this topic. Attached are some screenshots from the article that confirm this.

cross sex hormones are not available to children in the uk

Yes they are, from 'around 16', to the NHS [[https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Prescribing-of-cross-sex-hormones-as-part-of-the-gender-identity-development-service-for-children-and-adolesce.pdf]]. I'd say that's borne out by my daughter's classmates.

I call a 16 year old a child, don't you?

Sigh. I can do links when not full of a cold.

Not really, no, 16 year olds are legally allowed to marry and join the army so I think they should be allowed to consent to cross sex hormones

@WhatsInAName19 apology accepted

I’m also struck by the seeming disinterest in best practice research exhibited by trans rights advocates.

As lots of you know, I have a DD8 who is a haemotology/oncology patient and a DSD13 who is gender questioning.

Cancer parents are fierce about fundraising for research, particularly into potential treatments that are less harsh and less likely to affect long term bone health and more likely to leave fertility intact.
Both specialisms prescribe GnRHa meds (‘puberty blockers’) off label, but the cancer kids get them to try and preserve fertility, not to start them on a path that ends it.

Future fertility of paediatric oncology patients is taken so seriously that in some cases, preservation of ovarian tissue is recommended, even to babies.

Why aren’t GIDS patients treated with the same caution? Especially when you consider that the life expectancy of a paediatric oncology kid is much lower? Is it the suicide ideation statistics that throw caution to the wind? If so, they should really find a better way to accurately assess those numbers, there is a hell of a lot riding on it (especially as there is a big question mark over whether puberty blockers actually increase depression and suicide ideation).

FrackOff you don't seem to understand the medical pathway for these children. They are given puberty blockers early on in puberty - well before the age of 16. They are given cross-sex hormones once they are 16. Without puberty blockers, around 80% of these children will no longer identify as transgender once they have been through puberty. With puberty blockers, all of them go on to cross sex hormones.

They are not consenting to this treatment at 16, they are consenting much earlier, at the age of 11 or 12 (sometimes even younger than that).

And Helen Webberley prescribed testosterone to a 12-year-old girl in the UK.

16 year olds are legally allowed to marry and join the army

Only with their parents' consent.

so I think they should be allowed to consent to cross sex hormones

Only with their parents' consent?

@FrackOff

It really doesn't do much for your credibility to claim something has been "debunked" and then say you don't want to share the scientific studies that back up this belief.

If you have read something that you feel reinforces your strong belief then why on earth wouldn't you want to share it. Or shout it from the rooftops in fact!

You can't have a sensible debate if someone with one point of view refuses to share the studies that have shaped that point of view. You've asked people who don't agree with this to do so and then claimed each piece of evidence is biased for various reasons.

So where is your unbiased evidence? If you have it then you should want to share it, to spread the word about it and to educate people regarding your point of view.

I for one would like to see it, I enjoy having challenging results of studies to read and am open to reconsidering my point of view based on evidence.

So why won't you share yours?

A. I don't have time to do your research for you

B. If I shared my peer reviewed original research with long literature reviews published in international journals on here I'd out myself

C. When I post easy-to-digest things like podcasts, people say they can't be bothered to follow the link, sooooo....

Believe me or don't, but I feel confident that I have read enough to make my claims.

Podcasts demand a set amount of time but we can choose how much time to spend on written material.

You could’ve name changes and provided links in a fraction of the time it’s taken you to make excuses not to do so.

I don't have time to do your research for you

But you've already done it, so just c&p some of your references.

If I shared my peer reviewed original research with long literature reviews published in international journals on here I'd out myself

I don't understand this objection. If you don't want to out yourself you can post links to research without declaring it as your own. Or just post links to research by other people.

When I post easy-to-digest things like podcasts, people say they can't be bothered to follow the link

You can't skim read a podcast, so they're more time consuming.

If I shared my peer reviewed original research with long literature reviews published in international journals on here I'd out myself

Your own research, you mean? But surely there is more than one research paper you could share? Or, more than one author who's made the same arguments?

I'm not here for work!

So ... you're going to just keep citing 'journals' and 'evidence' but not actually share it?

I don't think you mean to be @FrackOff but you're very funny! You're basically saying you don't have time to / don't want to back up your opinion.

Which is fine obviously, that's your prerogative. But it does make you look rather silly. And makes you engaging in the conversation pretty pointless.

Extra points for seemingly thinking the use of "soooooooooo... " makes you seem less ridiculous.

Also a couple of years ago I made a big effort to anonymise my work and post references. And then I had multiple complaints about lack of access and people not being willing to actually read it. People literally said 'I can't be bothered to read this' on here. So no.

Ah. So the purpose is simply to assert your beliefs and direct us to come to the same conclusion as you because you say so?

Compelling stuff.

Lots of personal attacks on here! I'm being called ridiculous and silly. Not really in the spirit is it?

a couple of years ago I made a big effort to anonymise my work and post references

on here? So, can't you just link to that same thread/discussion?

Frack, best report then. Not being in the spirit, especially when disagreeing with a TRA, is usually something you can take us down for. Chop chop.

I'm not here for work!

Do you have any idea how tediously predictable this is? You've written loads, and spent time posting, whilst saying hardly anything, and refusing to even back at what little you do say.

Then say If you deliberately out yourself, you'll out yourself!

I'm not sure you realise how many women on here are well known, but manage to keep their identity completely anonymous. By, you know, not saying anything.