terrifying, dangerous, abusive "advice" on r/transgenderuk

[mardirousse]

https://www.reddit.com/r/transgenderUK/comments/1vo4oqz/hypothetical_situation/.

Dad wants to prevent his effeminate 15 year old boy from developing an adam's apple or deep voice, so "hypothetically" asks if he could back and forth to France for puberty blockers.

gets loads of "support", told he's a wonderful father, advised to put the lad on diy estrogen instead as it's more appropriate "at that age" (15!).

Surely platforms can't allow this, legally! it's so dangerous. I'm really upset. His poor little lad.

I strongly suggest you read the recent scientific studies showing that puberty blockers are safe, rather than transphobia.

Why is the NHS is doing a trial on puberty blockers if the data is already available?

Is that like saying that the use of heroin is on the rise due to the anti drugs movement?

Or the use of knifes is on the rise due to the anti gangs movement?

Or the use of cigarettes is on the rise due to the anti smoking movement?

It makes no sense at all.

Sure. If you are all for it then at least be honest with yourself.

Many posters on this board have gender questioning or trans identifying children or family members. Investigating the evidence base for so-called “gender affirming care” reveals bunting quantities of red flags.

Recent legal proceedings have revealed further evidence that undermines the claims of organisations such as WPATH. These claims underpin the whole gravy train promoting the creation of lifelong medical patients out of physically healthy children. Who benefits from that?

Posters here are concerned with safeguarding vulnerable children and young adults by exposing the medical scandal that has harmed so many.

Christ - OK- I've read it.

It doesn't 'debunk' it - it quibbles with it - eg. is a 'visit' the same as a 'treatment', tries to invoke surveillance bias - when both the treated and un-treated youths were under observation. The criticism continues with the index date being when someone walked into the clinic - not when 'treatment started' (clearly they don't consider treating co-morbid psychiatric symptoms as 'treatment)

He's very miffed that specialised psychiatric treatment is treated as a binary thing (either you did, or you didn't have treatment), rather than graded levels of required contact (ie. the idea that just being referred to a psychiatrist indicates anything if the psychiatrist then goes on to give them the all clear - and note, he doesn't say any psychiatrist did give them the all clear, just that they might have, and that's why he doesn't like the did/didn't have contact as a measurement) - btw this is a limitation freely admitted in the original study, and previous psychiatric treatment was indeed accounted for.

Then does some misdirection by using an analogy comparing people with cancer to the general population (the better - although still imperfect - analogy would be people with a lump, and oncology visits split in to lumps that turned out to be cancer and didn't turn out to be cancer).

Then he decides that it's highly likely that it's the review writer herself who's clearly causing the psychiatric issues in the patients.

He doesn't refute anything in fact - but just waves his hands at possibilities - eg the time from a patient walking into the clinic to getting a prescription - he says can be much longer than the 2 years the study covered - but doesn't say what the average is. He clearly didn't read the study, which clearly said that it wasn't a solid '2 years' but:

Psychiatric treatment, excluding gender identity assessments and appointments with a multi-disciplinary team therein, subsequent to the index contact was defined as continuing two years or more after the index contact, to allow time for the gender identity assessment and potential medical GR initiation

So basically, he (or ChatGPT) read the doc and looked for any possible cracks to exploit, but didn't read it very well, and avoided actually giving any concrete evidence against it.

Oh, and he literally attempts to discredit it by saying the journal it was published in wasn't very good, so I think we're allowed to criticise him as a source of knowledge in return

Yea. On balance, I think if I was going to join a cult, I'd prefer to join the one that wasn't trying to justify sterilising children.

Gender affirming medicine is awful. It's forcing children's bodies to match social stereotypes of gender. It's as misguided and cruel as sending unmarried mothers away to give birth in secrecy and shame because they don't fit society's rules.

The whole thing is a contradiction.

On the one hand, trans people prove that personalities (or in cult language, ones "gender") are not set by body sex.

But on the other, one has to transition to be the "right" sex for ones personality even though ones very existence proves there is no such thing.

If only these people who claim to care about trans children put as much effort into a society that accepts all personalities as fine for either sex as they do into literally medicalising children because they have the "wrong" body, how much better the world would be 😥

Oh - but that would take away the sleight of hand that allows a trans identifying man to claim his "womanly mind" makes it not just ok but absolutely essential that his male body be accepted in woman-only provisions alongside female ones rather than with other male bodies. Because of his mind. 🙄

Thank you for the clarity.

This is a weird take.

That's like insisting that there is no legitimate wider interest in what drugs we use for morning sickness (thalidomide anyone)

Or no wider legitimate discussion in other potenially ethically contentious areas of medicine such as assisted dying or abortion or cosmetic surgery or life support or organ donation or or or.

Society has every right to take an interest in wider discussions about Healthcare, science, medical treatments even when they have no specific direct experience or link. Especially when wider societal shifts are taking place and even more especially when vulnerable people and children are the most impacted.

You cannot demand no one except those with a life limiting disease gets to take about palliative care and no one but those who smoke or have lung cancer can discuss legislation on smoking.

In fact you can't stop people discussing and being concerned about anything they choose. And it is weird you should want to or think you can tbh.

Almost no medication is 'safe' what it is is 'safe compared to what you're trying to treat'

Since growing up without intervention is totally safe, you have to threaten people with the idea of suicide in order to justify the risk of puberty blockers - they are so dangerous, that the only way they can be justified to treat gender dysmorphia is death.

(PBs for precocious puberty are weighed carefully about the extremely serious outcomes of early puberty, and, importantly are only used for a short time, and then normal puberty is allowed to proceed - they are non undertaken lightly either)

It’s pretty hilarious that someone who has manufactured a new account just to post their outrage at people raising concerns about safeguarding is now claiming “manufactured outrage”.

tell me you’re incandescent with rage at the grift being over without telling me…..

Wearily resigned so much you started posted on MN for the very first time. That’s weird.

there’s nothing remotely rational about human beings believing they’ve changed sex or believing that gender trumps sex. Female is not a feeling in a man’s head. Woman is not a costume a man can wear. Puberty blockers for gender dysphoria = child abuse.

I’m not outraged, they say as they stamp their feet and spit froth at the laptop..

Yes, you’ve come over from Reddit to post nonsense in defence of hormonally altering kids as a brand new poster. It’s not hard to understand.

This dad says on another post that he took his boy (the same 15 year old) to a trans support group and clicked with a transwoman who'd like a fwb thing with him but he (the dad) wants something more......

What kind of a parent brings their child to a support group and turns the occasion into a dating opportunity for himself. Poor confused kid looking at his dad smarming all over a young transwoman in a support group!
That dad is a sick, abusive individual. I wonder where the mum his, there seems to be no one looking out for the lad.

Take a look in the mirror before accusing others of attacking anyone and everything that doesn't align with your narrow, blinkered viewpoint.

We don't have an 'inner self' that trumps our physical reality. We all have to live in our physical reality, whether that is ageing, disability, strength, or being male in the case of the teenager who is being pushed to try to alter his physical reality.

He can alter it to some extent, cosmetically, but that comes with very significant risks. I disagree with the OP to this extent, though: he is not a 'little lad', he is on the verge of adulthood, and needs to be treated as the age he is, with serious discussion of what is true and factual, what is possible and what is impossible, and what the consequences are of whatever path he takes. At 15, he either needs urgent investigation of why puberty hasn't started, or much more likely he is a fair way through puberty. Pausing or stopping puberty will have very significant consequences, both in terms of mental maturation and physical processes. Those who take the simplistic view that this is just fine, just 'time to think', need to understand that little is known about the long term impacts. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and human understanding of endocrinology and psychology is not all that advanced.

What kind of a parent? I think we all know.