Is there ANY concern among Trans Rights Activists for the health wellbeing of adolescents receiving gender affirming drugs that the findings of the Finnish study might be true

[mardirousse]

You would expect Trans Rights Activists to be concerned about the physical mental health of gender questioning children, yet I haven't seen a single TRA express the slightest concern that gender affirming care might be causing harm to young kids, who they see as transgender. Not here, not on r/transgenderuk, not on x.
They are attacking the credibility of the study, but given its size and the very shocking findings, why aren't at least some of them expressing a little concern that there might be something in it? I mean, these are vulnerable kids, and they're taking really powerful drugs with major long-term consequences, and now it looks like there's evidence that it may be doing the opposite of what it's supposed to...
How could you not be concerned, whatever your agenda? They're kids!
Aren't trans rights activists interested in the right of trans kids to be safe and healthy?
Am I missing something?

not neurospicy...maybe genderspicy?

We don't use the space here, it's transwomen and transmen, as they are not a subset of the thing they claim to be, but their own thing.

And a tad misogynistic to call the women confused but the men spicy?

Fully expected from a 'spicy man' though.

I have a fully stocked spice cupboard. Amd everything in it is what it is, regardless of how I label it. It won't help me when cooking to label garam masala as rosemary, now, will it. Spicy is a very silly term.

I'm only relaying my perception of how trans men and trans women are discussed in this space. I used spicy rather than 'evil', 'scheming', 'deviant,' 'dangerous,' 'lumbering,' 'diabolical,' 'predatory,' you get the idea.

Trans identifying male will do just fine

Ah, so spicy is a synonym for those things. Interesting.

I don't identify as trans, but your belief is your belief.

You've already talked about your trans journey so that ship sailed a while ago.

OK. Just 'man' then. Suits me.

@onepostwonder i wonder if you have come to realise that in the very far past that a very small group of men wanting to be seen as women, as part of transition were advised and encouraged to use women's spaces as part of “habilitation”

And what this has lead to is a free for all pass for men of all varieties to not only go in to our toilets but to invade every area of our female lives?

I believe 'trans' was a process I needed to undergo. The journey was over long ago.

I would agree that is how it looks.

Also,

From personal experience, trans life is hard.

Yes, existing as a trans person during transition was hard and is apparently still very difficult for people transitioning in 2026.

But you just also said that you don't identify as trans.

What is transition? How would one know it's complete? In other words, how much of the characteristics of a man does one have to lose, and how much of the characteristics of a woman does one have to gain, in order to no longer exist as a trans person but as a woman? I would expect you to be able to answer these questions at least for yourself, as you are claiming to be a woman.

All good questions @RapidOnsetGenderCritic

And just to add: what specifically are these characteristics that are lost or gained?

Not to mention doctors giving cross sex hormones to teenagers. Wasn't happening.

I don't. I am doing a bunch of accommodating here including myself in 'trans women' so that I don't have to repeat the same four posts daily responding to incessant pedantry.

I'm sure there's a rather solid sex realist understanding about transition already.

The predictable non answer.

It's off topic and I can't be arsed to answer the questions because they're obviously asked in bad faith.

That is your belief.

I think Rapid asked you in good faith because he genuinely wanted to know.

Clearly you struggle to answer such questions.

You are here to broadcast, not engage. But we knew that a long time ago.

And it's a bit rich to claim those questions are "off topic" all of a sudden when you spend most of the time veering off topic yourself, including on this very thread.

I think part of the problem is the gay analogy. The logic goes something like this: if you made the observation that coming out as gay appeared to make someone's life and mental health worse, you would be criticised as being homophobic, for not supporting their true selves.

But this ignores the fact that for a long time it was assumed that coming out as gay made your mental health and life worse. And it was the (in part clinical) evidence to the contrary - e.g. that even in the face of very considerable social stigma mental health improved - that contributed to the gay rights movement and to societal acceptance. To put it differently - there's a large body of evidence that coming to accept with one's homosexuality and living congruently with it is beneficial, even if there are individual cases where that might not appear to be the case.

That observation has been applied to the trans situation as a moral a priori without the evidence that supported it in the case of homosexuality. Namely, coming out and self acceptance for gays and lesbians usually did not result in changes of behaviour; it was simply acceptance of existing behaviour and orientation - being trans and transitioning, on the other hand, requires massive social changes, significant demands on others, life long cross sex hormone treatment, often along with surgeries and other physical treatments all of which have risks and known side effects. It is, in fact, practically the opposite, of coming out as gay. Many family members, friends, colleagues, and even mental health professionals note a significant worsening of mental health and adjustment when transition is begun, but those observations are quashed because of the stigma of the conflation with homosexuality.