Firstly, as has already been pointed out, I don’t believe any poster has said puberty blocking drugs don’t supress puberty.
This is an example of the very inconsistencies that we keep pointing out. But it is one of comprehension I think.
Other inconsistencies are like the discussion over the past pages of ‘authenticity’ which is a fallacy because it shows disconnected thinking.
However this statement below is significant and shows a deeper level of dissonance. And one that is harmful.
“In what way do I have no idea what it's like for young trans guys? You and Helleofabore spend thread after thread repeating the same appeal to essentialist tautology and then switch to the 'safeguarding' script when I indicate I do, in fact, have insight into this subject.”
To clarify, I assume you use the term ‘guys’, to mean FEMALE people. Yes? Are you deliberately using ‘guys’ to make those female children and young people to be seen as not female? Which would be the dismissive behaviour towards female people that I and others have noticed previously.
Now you do what you seems to be your habit to attempt to use terminology that makes you sound like you have thought about this as an intellectual concept in an appeal to authority. To clarify, I assume you want ‘essentialist tautology’ to convey that you think we use sex based terminology to exclude your personal experience from being relevant to a group of people you do not belong to.
In other words, you are complaining that posters are saying you have no relevant experience to be advising GIRLS about their personal issues. You, an adult male, are upset that posters, generally women, have pointed out it is a safeguarding risk that an adult male is advising female children on issues that adult males have no experience in.
And by doing so, you are potentially influencing significant medical decisions made by that child or young person. This is very serious and not to be dismissed.
You see, those inconsistencies I have posted in the previous post about how you consider yourself to be ‘typical’ of those using puberty blockers when, in fact, you have a unique experience that is not in any way typical due to your medical condition? That inconsistency alap applies here.
You, as a male person, cannot see the significance that you don’t understand the female childhood experiences that those female children are trying to deal with. Because you have centred yourself and your unique experience as being ‘typical’, when this is a falsehood.
You have insight in your transition story. It is not relevant to most of the female children you have positioned yourself to advise. This is why we keep pointing it out. Even Thomas Steensma has made the point that the current cohort has unique issues that the previous male cohort did not have.
You are not trained in child pyschology. You are not a female person. You have no experience as a female person dealing with a female human body.
Do you even have any experience in dealing with puberty except that yours was delayed and never finished? You only have the experience of being a trans person from a male perspective.
To be clear, you admit that you have not had the typical male puberty experience so your experience to be dealing with children going through puberty is significantly impaired. You have no lived experience at all however about female lives. No matter how you try to intellectualise it, you just don’t.
Plus you seem to view everything by centring yourself, if your behaviour on this board is anything to go by. Every thread you post on is a post centring yourself. That is a huge concern right there and shows you are not the right person to be talking to female children about this. Maybe not any children. You are so personally and heavily invested in this and use every opportunity as one to validate your own decisions.
You can derisively label it ‘essentialist’ to point out that you, as a male, have no insight into the issues faced by female children. The label doesn’t change the truth.
Your ‘insight’ is that you are a male person with a medical condition that is rare. You are not ‘typical’. Yet you want to be considered typical so that your personal experience is considered the norm. It isn’t and it never was.
I have my own thoughts as to why you do this, but those don’t change the fact that this has been a recognisable pattern over years of interaction.
The fact that we ‘switch to a safeguarding script’ is because this is a safeguarding issue.
And you are complaining that we see the organisation that allows you to advise children as a safeguarding risk. Instead of thinking whether we have a valid point or not. Someone wishing to support strong safeguarding should have the self awareness to think deeply about whether what others point out has merit when it relates to their actions and behaviours. That you don’t and actively dismiss it as ‘essentialism’ is a huge concern.
And at this point, I should save this post and merely keep posting it whenever you start this cycle again. I don’t believe I have said anything new in this post at all. But I think it needs to be said. Not for you though, Hatched. But for those reading along.