Transgender young people detransitioning
Interesting report on Sky News.
[YOUTUBE]7FRUDwDmkm0[/YOUTUBE]
Complex issue, but full on transitioning as a youngster always struck me as a potential risk, no matter how sure the child is. It is worrying that some therapists aren't making links between multiple psychological issues (like the kid with both anorexia and gender dysphoria). It may well be that there are young people for whom such a drastic step is the best way forward, but there are a lot of things to consider and rule out first.
I don't know nearly enough about the science to know whether trans-identities are a sign of a biological mismatch of sex and gender, or a sign of dysfunction, or both are possible individual to individual.
Unfortunately it is a topic that is so fraught and politicized that kids who find themselves regretting their decision are made to feel like traitors to the cause - meanwhile both sides of the political extreme are ready to jump on any discussion.
I dunno, I haven't lived it. But it seems an awfully drastic medical intervention at an age when the basics of identity are still forming.
Ugh. This is all going to get worse. Every awkward gay teenager gets to consider whether maybe they can be "fixed" by transitioning.
And because it's a divisive issue, it can't be discussed correctly...
This idea is part of a rift that's starting between the LGB and the T. LGB won't stand for the idea that they need fixing, cos they don't.
It's a tough topic. I know of one trans woman who never regretted committing to her identity, but did regret the surgery (admittedly, she had it done a long time ago when the process wasn't as refined, and that may have contributed to her dissatisfaction.) And I personally know one twenty-something with a ton of other mental health issues who very clearly chose to transition only as a last-ditch effort to prove (to themselves, as well as everyone else) that their consistent failure in life was once again everyone else's fault, and not a direct result of their own behavior.
I assume the majority don't regret it. But I admit I've never asked because it seems horrendously rude, and damaging to the already fragile recognition they've had to fight for.
I think the concept (meme even) of 'identifying' as this or that is at the root of this kind of thing. It's being used more and more, it's become part of the lexicon. Used by people that want to be accepted by this group or that. Looking for some acceptance and connection to anchor them. Some future change that will save them. But then, once they go through it, the feeling of disconnectedness comes back. Maybe if they change back.... and round and round.
If you consider the word... Identify. you're trying to exert influence on your Id. You can't do that and be honest with yourself. Your ego is declaring it's dominance over your being. The thoughts should serve the being instead. When there is a conflict between the two, it would be better to recognize the conflict and try to resolve it instead of smashing away at the square peg. If you smash hard enough, you will eventually get it into the round hole, but there will be damage, and as expected, the problem is not resolved. They still feel disconnected.
better than loppin' it off
Coincidentally, this popped up on my Youtube recommended list - pretty random, as I haven't been watching any videos about this. ;P
[YOUTUBE]iq0H1Y1jE4s[/YOUTUBE]
It's a woman's prerogative to change her mind; so, a transwoman who wants to go back to being a man is probably safe. A transman who wants to go back to being a woman; however, might be sued under common law … might at least have to take a pay cut.
:runaway:
heheh I see what you did there
Another video has been around since Feb on the same topic. A group of four girls, three of whom were on testosterone for some time, who later decided it was a mistake. Sad thing is that you can, to varying degrees, see that those three had been on testosterone.
[YOUTUBE]kxVmSGTgNxI[/YOUTUBE]
So, now I'm getting a lot of videos on this topic pop up in my youtube feed.
I found this one very interesting:
[YOUTUBE]dJMMqREtQJc[/YOUTUBE]
Hacsi Horvath is an expert in systematic review methods, assessing bias in research studies and evaluating the certainty of evidence across studies in a given body of scientific literature. He is an adjunct Lecturer in the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at the University of California, San Francisco. Horvath formerly identified as transgender and presented as a woman for more than a dozen years.
Horvath explained why transition affirming therapies are so dangerous, especially for youth.
It's better to be an ugly guy than an ugly chick.
It's better to be an ugly guy than an ugly chick.
Yup.
Ugly chicks get laid, though.
A lot more than ugly guys.
What the almighty fuck?
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCecsVoeJcsXbAra7Sl4mOPw
The Queer Kids' Stuff channel - aimed at pre-school - kindergarten age kids.
Description
LGBTQ+ vids for kids! I'm your host Lindsay and with the help of my best stuffed friend, Teddy, we'll be teaching you what gays mean, what LGBT stands for, what's up with marriage equality and so much more!
One of the playlists is called 'All about ACTIVISM!' and includes titles like,
Are you an ACTIVIST? - A is for Activist by Innosanto Nagara: QUEER KID STUFF STORYTIME
The Future Is FEMALE! - The Women's March 2017:
INTRO to INTERSECTIONALITY - Privilege:
The main series has topics like:
What do you call QUEER PARENTS?
Reading NEITHER with Drag Queen Story Hour - Storytime:
and the old classic:
B is for BI-SEXUAL!
One of the ideas they seem to be pushing is that everybody is really queer in some way.
You know - when I was in secondary school there was a law passed that made it illegal for teachers to discuss homosexuality with children, even if said child had come to them to seek advice because they thought they might be gay - books were purged from school libraries if they had the slightest hint of the Gay
And one of the biggest arguments for this was that homosexuality was something children learned and by learning about it and discussing it it would be normalised and that schools discussing the subject in any way could effectively groom, kids into gayness.
The LGBT community worked fucking hard to fight that notion and present the counter evidence that they were not a threat to the nation's youth -
I would be so depressed if I was part of my cohort's LGBT community - youtiber LGBT activists seem to be hell bent on being the thing that people fear, instead of actually showing that the various different ways in which humans experience and express gender identity and sexual orientation have validity and are normal for a percentage of the population at any given time.
This is not teaching children to be accepting of difference and not to feel ashamed or like they have to hide away if they don't naturally conform to the societal norm - it is pure political indoctrination. It is fucking vile.
Kids that young don't need to know this stuff. Teach them to accept difference in general terms. Nothing wrong with a kids tv show having a character who adults would characterise as transgender - but the kids dont need that word - they just need to know that if someone they think looks like a boy has decided he wants to wear a skirt and play with the girls - it's ok. People are different and that's ok.
They don't need a detailed breakdown of all the various ways people experience gender and sexual identities - they're children - let em get to grips with using pencils and not sticking lego up their noses before we hit them with this shit.
And they certainly don;t need to learn about fucking feminism and political activism - seriously what the almighty fuck?
The world's gone mad. This is insanity.
:facepalm:
No wonder people a desperately hoping for the Rapture or Zombie apocalypse.
I dunno, I haven't lived it. But it seems an awfully drastic medical intervention at an age when the basics of identity are still forming.
It seems to me that elective surgery or body modification should be something an adult (18+) makes.
Particularly troubling is the use of hormones on adolescents. Adolescents already have enough of that going on, and I am reasonably sure that we don't know all the effects this would have on brain development, etc.
What the almighty fuck?
--snip--
The world's gone mad. This is insanity.
:lol2:
If that were
my post...you'd be all up in m'grill telling me how wrong I was.
And prolly make me change my mind.;)
:p:
Particularly troubling is the use of hormones on adolescents. Adolescents already have enough of that going on, and I am reasonably sure that we don't know all the effects this would have on brain development, etc.
As I understand it, for the most part, they are only doing hormone-
blocking on adolescents. Which has its own set of side effects, but the intent is to put off the hormones until they're old enough to make the decision.
How can they make the right decision until nature has taken its course, until they've experienced the hormone's effects? :confused:
That's a decision in itself, and also can't be undone if it was the wrong one.
As I understand it, for the most part, they are only doing hormone-blocking on adolescents. Which has its own set of side effects, but the intent is to put off the hormones until they're old enough to make the decision.
I am unsure there is a functional difference. You're still messing around with your brain before it's done developing.
There's a definite functional difference, because the end result of each path is very different. You could say that there's no difference at some level of abstraction, but at the functional level it's very different.
There's a definite functional difference, because the end result of each path is very different. You could say that there's no difference at some level of abstraction, but at the functional level it's very different.
I'm not a doctor, so I can't argue with that.
I am, however, a process geek, and if a change to a process leads to damage, then the change (whether it is omission or commission) was undesirable.
If the process may be irreversibly going in the wrong direction, then the decision has to be made whether to risk some damage in the short term to get the information needed to correctly guide the process later.
There is definitely a difference between blocking hormones and taking hormones. One prevents puberty by blocking testosterone or estrogen - the other floods the system with testosterone or estrogen. Totally different things with totally different effects.
One major issue with giving hormone blockers prior to puberty is that it can actually lead to a worse transition outcome for those kids that do go through with transitioning. E.g: for a male to female transition, if the person never developed an adult size penis, they will only be able to have a very shallow vagina.
Seemingly, just from the vids I've seen, the best outcomes seem to be when someone transitions post puberty but while still young - so between the ages of 17 and 25.
As hard as it is for some youngsters whose gender dysphoria is extreme, probably their best chance of a reasonably happy outcome is therapy and support until they are a little more developed, and a lot of understanding from all around them that puberty is going to outright suck more for them than for the average youngster and maybe, with that additional time, explore other possible issues such as body dysmorphia which can easily be misread as gender dysphoria
The biggest problem though, as I see it, is the absolute dearth of research into the long term effects of such treatment. As Luce says, we just do not know enough about what this will do to these kids - what the implications might be when they get to their 30s and 40s and onwards.
The whole thing has become way too politicised - the whole non-binary thing in particular. The blurring of the categories of male and female is all very well at a behavioral or self-identity level - but from a medical perspective it has made it almost impossible for reasonable discourse. When physicians and therapists are being shouted down for saying that gender dysphoria is a disorder - it is ridiculous. How are they supposed to help trans people if they are no longer able to name the problem?
Meanwhile activists like the Queer Kids Stuff channel are promoting this woolly notion that it's all on a spectrum and we're all really non-binary - that there isn't really a binary at all - and quelle surprise suddenly every kid who doesn't completely conform to gender expectations is identifying as 'trans' and 'non-binary'
Thank god this wasn't a thing when I was a kid. I was a tomboy - if I'd been on social media when I was 12 I could easily have found myself going down the rabbithole.
I'm all for broadening what we mean by masculine and feminine so that people are not 'trapped' by gender expectations, and I have long been of the opinion that the supposedly innate differences between male and female brains have generally been overplayed - there are differences, but in terms of how that plays out in cognitive function has been been poorly understood and most of the research suggests that the socially constructed elements of gender are very important due to the primary characteristic of the brain being its elasticity - but dispensing with all distinction makes no sense whatsoever. Medically, psychologically and socially dangerous.
[COLOR="Silver"]One major issue with[/COLOR] giving hormone blockers prior to puberty [COLOR="silver"]is that it can actually lead to a worse transition outcome for those kids that do go through with transitioning. E.g: for a male to female transition, if[/COLOR] the person never developed an adult size penis, [COLOR="silver"]they will only be able to have a very shallow vagina.
[/COLOR]
So that's what they did to me. :eek:
People don't seem to understand the flowchart on this.
Pathway #1 is that a person undergoes a normal puberty, turns 18, and then seeks medical intervention to attempt to reverse the hormonal effects, insomuch as this is possible. This isn't effective because some of the physiological effects of puberty are irreversible.
Pathway #2 is that the hormonal effects of puberty are delayed. This is physiologically no different than Olympic gymnasts having a delayed puberty. In this case, there are no physiological changes, and no irreversible changes of any kind. The person turns 18 and can seek medical intervention, without the added complication of attempting to reverse physiological changes that have already taken place.
...
There are no "transitioning" children-- this doesn't exist.
People don't seem to understand the flowchart on this.
Pathway #1 is that a person undergoes a normal puberty, turns 18, and then seeks medical intervention to attempt to reverse the hormonal effects, insomuch as this is possible. This isn't effective because some of the physiological effects of puberty are irreversible.
Pathway #2 is that the hormonal effects of puberty are delayed. This is physiologically no different than Olympic gymnasts having a delayed puberty. In this case, there are no physiological changes, and no irreversible changes of any kind. The person turns 18 and can seek medical intervention, without the added complication of attempting to reverse physiological changes that have already taken place.
...
There are no "transitioning" children-- this doesn't exist.
Interesting. Honest question: Do we know there are no side effects of delaying puberty?
And gymnasts really do that?
The purpose of waiting till they're 18 is they are a legal adult and can call the shots(no pun).
But if they have hormones blocked along the way are they actually an adult? Or just legal.
Isn't blocking hormones before 18 actually making a choice but not taking the responsibility for it?
People don't seem to understand the flowchart on this.
Pathway #1 is that a person undergoes a normal puberty, turns 18, and then seeks medical intervention to attempt to reverse the hormonal effects, insomuch as this is possible. This isn't effective because some of the physiological effects of puberty are irreversible.
Pathway #2 is that the hormonal effects of puberty are delayed. This is physiologically no different than Olympic gymnasts having a delayed puberty. In this case, there are no physiological changes, and no irreversible changes of any kind. The person turns 18 and can seek medical intervention, without the added complication of attempting to reverse physiological changes that have already taken place.
...
There are no "transitioning" children-- this doesn't exist.
Depends on what we consider children. Girls as young as 13 can have radical mastectomies and hysterectomies with parental consent in some states in the US.
Hormone therapy can also start very young, I believe.
I don't know enough about it - but I do think there are risks of children being misdiagnosed with gender dysphoria and ending up on a railroad to transition.
On the other hand children who genuinely have gender dysmorphia absolutely need proper help and support with a view to transitioning.
In this case, there are no physiological changes, and no irreversible changes of any kind.
Interesting. Honest question: Do we know there are no side effects of delaying puberty?
And gymnasts really do that?
There are side effects, but they need to be weighed against the effects of the other choices. The medication is fairly safe, and has been in use to prevent early puberty for quite a while, but using it for this purpose is recent.
Gymnasts (mostly; I imagine every type of doping has been done at some point) don't take drugs to delay puberty, but their intense food and exercise regimen delays it*,
Isn't blocking hormones before 18 actually making a choice but not taking the responsibility for it?
Yes it's a choice, but how is it not taking responsibility?
Doing nothing is also a choice, but I would think that people would be far more likely to try to avoid responsibility for something by claiming that they just let nature take its course than would people who went on a specific medical regimen.
This video in particular was worrying:
[YOUTUBE]QkcveiCnN44[/YOUTUBE]
i have very mixed feelings about the whole thing. I particularly worry that kids who aren't actually transgender will end up on a path to transition - meanwhile, youngsters who need to transition may not get the level of support they need.
If it was just a medical thing we wouldn't be having this conversation - the political aspect of it is muddying the waters in really unhelpful ways.
Withe regards to puberty blockers, I think there is a difference between delaying natural puberty (e.g to prevent early puberty as mentioned above) and preventing natural puberty altogether which is, as I understand it, what happens for some of these youngster - if they go from hormone blockers to hormone therapy, never go through the puberty their body would naturally go through as their biological sex, and then bringing about a kind of pseudo puberty with the hormones of the gender they are transitioning to.
Whether that can bring about a good outcome? I don;t know. Probably for some it will - but we do not fully understand the long term effects - it's a huge experiment.
Yes it's a choice, but how is it not taking responsibility?
Juveniles aren't giving hormone blockers to themselves, parents, Doctors, some adult is calling the shots for the kid. In effect they're making the decision on a path but leaving it to the 18 year old to make the legal choice that others already laid out for them.
Yes, they can decide against that path but how many will after years of being prepped and brainwashed that it's the right path.
They make the choice what to do or not to do, whichever choice they make. And "not to do" is the choice that I would see as having the most hazard of not taking responsibility. And it's also the choice that is by far most likely to be "prepped and brainwashed" in favor of.
Juveniles aren't giving hormone blockers to themselves, parents, Doctors, some adult is calling the shots for the kid.
No. This is wrong. This is factually wrong. The kid is in intense counseling to deal with the physiological impacts of not conforming to society's expectations. It is 100% based on the kid and 0% based on what the parent wants.
Does the doctor physically write the prescription and physically hold the needle? Does the parent care about their kid, and not want them to commit suicide? Of course, but this is not "calling the shots" by any stretch of the imagination.
...we do not fully understand the long term effects - it's a huge experiment.
Unfortunately, the only way we get to study the long-term effects (of anything) is for folks to do it, and then study them. The "we have no data so we can't do it until we have data" argument is a tautology in any field.
Unfortunately, the only way we get to study the long-term effects (of anything) is for folks to do it, and then study them. The "we have no data so we can't do it until we have data" argument is a tautology in any field.
We could try it on rats for a while.
No. This is wrong. This is factually wrong. The kid is in intense counseling to deal with the physiological impacts of not conforming to society's expectations. It is 100% based on the kid and 0% based on what the parent wants.
Does the doctor physically write the prescription and physically hold the needle? Does the parent care about their kid, and not want them to commit suicide? Of course, but this is not "calling the shots" by any stretch of the imagination.
Are you telling me the parents and counselor don't have any influences of the kids decision? I can't buy that at all.
If you are right and the have no influence then the kid is making a choice before it's legal for him/her to do so.
I'm telling you "parents, Doctors, some adult is calling the shots for the kid" is wrong. Nothing more, nothing less.
If you want to move the goalpost to "have any influence" that's a longer, more nuanced discussion and I didn't engage you on that.
This conversation is around gender right now but with the bio-tech coming down the road it's going to get even more interesting. I self-identify as a corvid but am late to the transitioning game. (not making light of the current situation, just wondering how things will sort)
I'm telling you "parents, Doctors, some adult is calling the shots for the kid" is wrong. Nothing more, nothing less.
No ethical doctor is going to act on the kids say so without the parent (or court/authority) ordering it.
Or on the parent's say-so against the kid's wishes (except to do nothing).
When I was 16 I knew every goddamn thing, spent the rest of my life proving I had forgotten it. :o
on one hand: i don't give a flip what people do to themselves (no matter how stupid or delusional) as long as i'm not payin' for it or are bein' forced to participate
on the other: kids are dumb, wild animals that need harnessing...we don't let 'em jump off the roof but we will let 'em hormonally, surgically mutilate themselves?
it's a barrel of rattlesnakes: there's no easy way to get to bottom of it
NO goddamnit we DO NOT allow kids to do that.
NOBODY is doing that and NOBODY is saying we should.
NO goddamnit we DO NOT allow kids to do that.
NOBODY is doing that and NOBODY is saying we should.
So: no minors are allowed to take any kind of hormone or hormone-alterin' treatments to affect gender appearance, and no minors are undergoin' any kind of sex/gender alterin' surgeries, yeah?
Well then: what's the big whoop?
If minors can't monkey 'round with the structure of their bodies in any real way, then all they can do is play dress up, yeah?
Again: what's the big whoop?
There's no big whoop, it's all much ado about nothing.
There's no big whoop, it's all much ado about nothing.
So: this thread is just a waste of time, yeah?
For balance, or whatever,
here is an account of a woman transgendered long term. More comfortable in her own skin, absolutely no regrets whatsoever. Faces the dumb rejection of (some) family and others,
Also of note, suicide statistics. These would belong in Happy Monkey's "do nothing" category. Unless there is an equally compelling outcome on the other side of the equation, I'm really at a loss to see an opposing argument.
Unless, *checks notes* ahh yes, trans people "make me feel icky"
Trans people don't make me feel icky - I was actively supportive of a small group of trans people who were campaigning in my borough for better access to health services and a less obstacle laden path to transition for those that need it, back when I was a local councillor.
I do have concerns about children going through this stuff - and so, seemingly do quite a few trans people, going off some of the youtube commentators.
Having those concerns does not equate to being anti-trans. But that is where the argument always ends up: if you question the current approach in any way you are denounced as anti-trans - even if, like a few commentators i have seen, you are yourself transgender.
This, right here, is why the issue is of concern - because it is far too politicised.
There's a really nasty anti-LGBT and in particular anti-trans streak in some of the discourse especially coming from the right - and that needs watching, but lumping any questioning into that makes the entire topic toxic
Trans people don't make me feel icky - I was actively supportive of a small group of trans people who were campaigning in my borough for better access to health services and a less obstacle laden path to transition for those that need it, back when I was a local councillor.
I do have concerns about children going through this stuff - and so, seemingly do quite a few trans people, going off some of the youtube commentators.
Having those concerns does not equate to being anti-trans.
This is the problem I have. My youngest kid (24 years old) is transgendered and has been since age 16. He has no intent of physically transitioning to a male body, mostly due to medical issues.
So believe me when I say I have no beef with transgender people, even if I still screw up the old pronouns now and again.
But my limit is right about here, with medical procedures being done on children. I can see both ends of the argument, but I don't know enough about the medical risks to be okay with a minor transitioning.
There. Are. No. Medical. Procedures. Done. On. Children.
There. Are. No. Medical. Procedures. Done. On. Children.
Then that simplifies things greatly, and there is no issue at all.
This now falls into the realm of "don't tell people what to do."
I think a good "icky" to fight is just masculine women and feminine men. Some will transition, some will be gay, some will be straight and it's all just part of the beautiful human spectrum.
The transfolk I have known were last generation and seemed "born that way" or, as was thought at one point, influenced so early in childhood that it's the same thing. There seems now to be a new broader generation of people who are not exactly in that category. People who give up transitioning because they realized they were "just gay". I've seen a few of those stories.
This now falls into the realm of "don't tell people what to do."
Yes, goin' both ways. As I say up-thread '
i don't give a flip what people do to themselves (no matter how stupid or delusional)
as long as i'm not payin' for it or are bein'
forced to participateThere. Are. No. Medical. Procedures. Done. On. Children.
That is incorrect.
Mastectomies for girls as young as 13 who have already decided to transition are medical procedures on children.
Using hormone blockers on a child is a medical procedure - it just isn't a surgical one - there is some evidence to suggest it can have an impact on their health in later life: though this seems to be particularly the case for female to male transition. There is evidence (I am not well versed enough to be able to say how compelling) to suggest that girls who block puberty and then transition through male hormones do not store sufficient calcium and are at much higher risk of osteoporosis.
I think it's a different situation with boys who are given puberty blockers - there seems less evidence of long term impact from the delaying of puberty.
There is also an apparent risk of infertility and other irreversible effects - though how much of that is through delaying puberty and how much through the use if male or female hormones to allow transition I am not sure.
There are also risks involved in not allowing transgender children to begin down the path - and they shouldn't be minimized.
Parents of trans children are between a rock and a hard place - and so are many health professionals - but there is, running alongside that an ideological drive by some to actively promote gender transition or genderlessness - (from kids shows on youtube singing songs for pre-schoolers about how everyone is really queer and teaching all about the multiplicity of genders on the spectrum (Moon Gender anyone?), to an insistence that you don't need gender dysphoria to be transgender and deplatforming academics and health professionals who disagree and who consider it the definitive reason for transition.
So there is a risk that youngsters who are not suffering from gender dysphoria, but are subject to other forms of body dysmorphia are finding themselves on the transgender track - all the whlle having that diagnosis validated and confirmed by that track so they end up on hormone treatments by the the time they are in their early to mid-teens: and if someone who doesn't actually have gender dysphoria
is misdiagnosed and treated as if they do, then this can actually create dysphoria by bringing about fairly radical changes some of which will not go away if they decide to abandon hormone treatment.
Again, this seems to be something which is primarily affecting girls who think they are transgender and then realise its something else, like anorexia, or anxiety about male attention.
There are cases of the above. How prominent that experience is compared to those for whom early transition partly or wholly resolved their gender dysphoria and allowed them to live a normal life, i don;t know - and I suspect few, if any here know either.
There. Are. No. Medical. Procedures. Done. On. Children.
That is incorrect.
Mastectomies for girls as young as 13 who have already decided to transition are medical procedures on children.
Using hormone blockers on a child is a medical procedure - it just isn't a surgical one - there is some evidence to suggest it can have an impact on their health in later life: though this seems to be particularly the case for female to male transition. There is evidence (I am not well versed enough to be able to say how compelling) to suggest that girls who block puberty and then transition through male hormones do not store sufficient calcium and are at much higher risk of osteoporosis.
Yes, goin' both ways. As I say up-thread 'i don't give a flip what people do to themselves (no matter how stupid or delusional) as long as i'm not payin' for it or are bein' forced to participate
I don't even care if I'm paying for it.
I mean, if I'm not, they'll just make more bombs with my money.
Boobs or bombs. You gotta choose.
I don't even care if I'm paying for it.
I mean, if I'm not, they'll just make more bombs with my money.
Boobs or bombs. You gotta choose.
Nope, just run up the deficit some more, we're only paying a Billion dollars a day interest.
I don't even care if I'm paying for it.
I mean, if I'm not, they'll just make more bombs with my money.
Boobs or bombs. You gotta choose.
Let's see...
I can buy fake tits for deluded folks...
...or...
I can buy big ass bombs.
I pick bombs (more bang for my buck).
Nope, just run up the deficit some more, we're only paying a Billion dollars a day interest.
I am being told, once again, that deficits don't matter.
A Billion dollars a day is a Starbucks latte for each person living in this country, each day.
Free daily lattes for everyone if we pay off the debt.
But I don't drink coffee, wouldn't want to poison my body with a drug. :haha:
But I don't drink coffee, wouldn't want to poison my body with a drug. :haha:
How are you even alive?
Coincidentally, given my comment:
Having those concerns does not equate to being anti-trans. But that is where the argument always ends up: if you question the current approach in any way you are denounced as anti-trans - even if, like a few commentators i have seen, you are yourself transgender.
This, right here, is why the issue is of concern - because it is far too politicised.
There's a really nasty anti-LGBT and in particular anti-trans streak in some of the discourse especially coming from the right - and that needs watching, but lumping any questioning into that makes the entire topic toxic
Blaire White's latest, in which she tackles the accusations of transphobia she has received recently:
[YOUTUBE]WsxK4_FKfc0[/YOUTUBE]
Oh look: exactly the thing I was concerned about...apparently this stuff is happening here as well. I am familiar with the clinic in question as a friend / colleague of mine was campaigning for changes in the funding formula and routing back in 2010:
[YOUTUBE]ZYCP7ZqJBWw[/YOUTUBE]
I misspoke by not clarifying that "trans people make me feel icky" wasn't directed at anyone in particular. I didn't mean anyone in this thread or anyone referenced here.
My apologies, as the main discourse about trans people currently in circulation is a never-ending string of angry patriots shouting "why do [trans women] want to shove tampons up their butt!" and a very tired army of people replying, endlessly, "the sanitary products are for trans MEN"
*deluded women
but not TRANS women
but not TRANS women
They're deluded men who'll never need a tampon, no matter how well crafted their ya-yas are.
------
Mebbe sombody wants to post most updated version of the list of the 217 genders (and counting)?
I got no clue on any of these variations on a theme beyond women lookin' to be men, and men lookin' to be women.
Mebbe sombody wants to post most updated version of the list of the 217 genders (and counting)?
I got no clue on any of these variations on a theme beyond women lookin' to be men, and men lookin' to be women.
If you really want to, it's easy to start by understanding the first two, the ones you mentioned:
"women lookin' to be [COLOR="RoyalBlue"]
men[/COLOR]" are Trans [COLOR="royalblue"]
MEN[/COLOR]
"men lookin' to be [COLOR="Magenta"]
women[/COLOR]" are Trans [COLOR="magenta"]
WOMEN[/COLOR]
Next, "non-Binary" = doesn't identify as a man OR a woman.
That's, like, three. That's the three main ones.
AFAB = "assigned female at birth"
AMAB = "assigned male at birth" --these two mean what's "in your pants" more or less
Queer means, "something" unconventional. non-specific
Cis means
nothing unconventional-- you look like a man, have a penis, and call yourself a man. Or vice versa
So that's, like, seven new words.
Pop Quiz! AFAB Trans Man. Do they need tampons?
Pop Quiz! AFAB Trans Man. Do they need tampons?
Okay, this is a girl who wants to be a guy, right?
So: plug it up (unless, of course, she goes all out and has her plumbin' gutted).
Pop Quiz! AFAB Trans Man. Do they need tampons?
Probably not after all the hormones and shit.
Not everybody can afford hormones, has started them, or even wants to do them at all. Trans people don't "become trans" because they started a medical procedure, therefore they are not "less trans" because they haven't done one.
Pop Quiz! AFAB Trans Man. Do they need tampons?
The question is ambiguous as it doesn't differentiate between transgender and transsexual. The above responses are correct for each individual's interpretation although the response for another interpretation can be argued (i.e. trick question).
The term trans man is used as a short form for either identity (transsexual man and transgender man).:corn:
Please do go on.
I'm fascinated.
Pam!
What's your take on how gender dysphoria should be tackled in youngsters ?
Welp, since you asked...
I don't hold with youth transition, despite being at odds with trans orthodoxy. I'm cool with crossdressing and makeup and hairstyles and lots and lots of proper therapy, but absolutely no interfering with body chemistry until they are old and wise enough to fully understand the consequences and risks. And there are many. Serious, even life-threatening consequences that many supportive therapists and well-meaning friends don't mention.
Something like 80% of children change their mind around 15-18 years old. Drugs will ruin any chance of a normal relationship for those.
When I was eight, I knew for SURE that I was really an astronaut. I wore NASA hats and patches, had stickers on my laundry hamper, even a lunar lander tent in the yard. But that didn't make me an astronaut. And I changed my mind like 100 times since then.
I also do not really hold with even bringing the subjects of transsexuality and homosexuality up with children who still think muppets are real. The subject matter is far too mature and complicated for such young minds who are struggling with weighty topics like pb&j or grilled cheese for lunch, who would win, Superman or Batman, multiplication tables and phonics (do they even teach that anymore?) Let kids grow up at their own pace and answer questions as they come up with answers that are age-appropriate.
I once explained to a seven-year-old about Santa when some smart-arse at school told him that Santa wasn't real. Wasn't easy, as I remember when I found out that there was no real Jolly Red Elf. But it wasn't until my late teens that I finally understood that Santa isn't a real person, it's a concept personified by a fictional character to make it understandable to young children (and coerce some good behavior for a month :) )
The same goes or so-called gender identity. The concept is too complicated for a young mind. Let them explore and don't panic. Don't push anything and nearly all of it will evaporate in a little while.
And while I'm on the subject, I have been hearing lately that there are some people trying to eliminate the "gatekeeper" model of therapy so that hormones and even surgery are as easily obtained as aspirin and a nose-job. As much as I dislike having to justify and "prove" myself to some shrink that listens to new-age music and has a mood ring on her desk, there is a very good reason or this and it should remain and maybe even get strengthened. Read Walt Heyer's website. Read the stories within. There is a common thread to most of them. Nearly all somehow bypassed the disinterested third-party observer who can say stop! Rethink this before you do something that you cannot take back or undo.
To sum it up, no one should push children to do anything other than their chores and homework. Transition is not for children, any more than liquor or tobacco or tattoos are. All have negative consequences and should be left to adults to choose or not. Never children. Wearing a dress isn't transition. It's playing dress-up, which all kids do to some extent. It's 100% reversible and harmless. Makeup washes off. Hormones change stuff internally and cannot be reversed.
Some people need to realize that it is okay to be an effeminate boy or a masculine girl. One of my best friends growing up was a total tomboy. She is now a healthy and happy woman. That doesn't make the kid trans.
So just chill!
Oh, one other thing. That young boy in Texas who was in the news recently. His mother is using Genecis for the transition care. They are notorious for pushing transition and never challenging the patient to consider NOT transitioning. They assume everyone brought to them is trans and does everything possible to see that they transition, even strongly encouraging kids who are wavering to stick by the program and keep going. This is very wrong. All people considering transition should talk to both sides before starting. Talk to someone who has transitioned and someone else who has DE-transitioned. Or at least watch a lecture.
One of our losg-lost users, Lisa, once described her transition to me as "she dragged herself kicking and screaming into the operating room". That's how it should be. As we say, "Transition ain't for sissies!" That is very true. I, myself, am always questioning myself and analyzing my motives and checking to see if I have changed my mind. So far, all is good. I'm happier this way than I've ever been. But all of life's problems are still there, no matter what. Being a girl doesn't change a thing when it comes to paying the bills, or the car breaking down, or the weather or winter blahs. The depression is always there, lurking but really nothing more than a dark corner of my mind, something that goes bump in the night but won't hurt me. It only affects me at low points. It goes away if I talk to friends or force myself to do something positive. My therapist challenges me all the time and that's a good thing. A therapist who only supports me isn't helping me really.
That young boy's mother is harming him with kindness, not helping him. His father is right. I support the father in his fight to stop the rush to transition.
I'll get off my soapbox now and let my opinion percolate. Agree with me or not.
Love
Pamela
That's good insight. Thanks for opening up.
It goes away if I talk to friends or force myself to do something positive.
You ought to feel great right now because you've just done a very very good thing.
Thank you for taking the time and trouble to share. :notworthy
Pamela is right on the money.
And speaking of money, it would seem that a bunch of folks have figured out a way to make it.
Cui bono? Not the children.
Thanks for that insight, Pam. I think you've nailed the key problems with child transitioning.
I also totally agree with this: 'Some people need to realize that it is okay to be an effeminate boy or a masculine girl.'
Absolutely. Bizarrely, we seem to have moved away from what was a growing idea that there are many ways to be male and many ways to be female and in some ways stepped back towards more fixed notions of masculinity and femininity, by default - if people who are simply a more masculine girl or a more feminine boy are identifying, or being encouraged to identify, as the other gender because they don't seem to fit comfortably into a standard notion of what male and female are like... it seems a retrograde step to me.
Many of us feel at various times, particularly when growing up, as if we don't entirely fit our gender - we see a particular way of being male or female on tv, in our schools, in culture generally and it doesn't reflect us and that can make us question ourselves in various ways. I think there is a danger in misreading that as somehow akin to the far more profound (as I understand it) sense of dislocation and wrongness that transgender people experience. And it speaks to a tightening of gender conceptions if to be a more masculine girl means you must therefore be male, or to be a more feminine boy means you must therefore be female.
Who in the world imagines that parents objected to ear piercings (on a girl, no less!) in 2000? You'd have to go back to at least 1950 for that attitude, I'd guess. First panel should be "bellybutton" instead. (Y'know, since no one asked for my critique and all...)
She seems to be referring to one ear and has her hand on the right side of her face. I thought that right side piercing being indicative of gay/lesbian sexual orientation was less prevalent by 2000; but, that could be what it's about.
Depends on the age of the girl, also on ethnicity. Some people of Portuguese, Spanish, and Italian descent in New England do baby girls before their first birthday, others make them wait till High School.
Parents can be so unpredictable and exasperating. :lol:
Besides, that's Canada and they're sorry. ;)
Lifesite News?
They're about as credible as your standard UK tabloid.
I don't know anything about the site, the story is what caught my eye.
Is the story wrong?
I don't know anything about the site, the story is what caught my eye.
Is the story wrong?
If it was on Lifesite, it is automatically at least suspect. They're pretty infamous for just making things up, or deliberately misrepresenting things.
It's amusing how transparently biased that article is. They report on a gender issue and make the editorial decision to refer to the child as "she" and when the judge refers to the child as "he" they throw a [SIC] in after it.
It's amusing how transparently biased that article is. They report on a gender issue and make the editorial decision to refer to the child as "she" and when the judge refers to the child as "he" they throw a [SIC] in after it.
Lifesite doesn't make any pretense of being unbiased.
So: the site is biased.
Okay.
Best I can tell pretty much all outlets are.
But: is the story wrong?
It's amusing how transparently biased that article is. They report on a gender issue and make the editorial decision to refer to the child as "she" and when the judge refers to the child as "he" they throw a [SIC] in after it.
But up to 2014 we all would have expected the [sic]
This reflects a cultural bias that reflects a majority* opinion. She is a 15-year-old girl who wants to be a boy and is in transition. Most people would insist that AB's pronouns reflect her current biological categorization, especially as a teenager. It doesn't really matter what she
wants, legally; and it doesn't automatically change if she is taking hormones on the way to transition.
That attitude may be, um, wrong; who knows, it is a crazy issue.
However, in Canada, it is damn near illegal to refer to a transitioning person with anything other than their chosen pronoun.
The article is clarifying the judge's incorrect language for its readers.
*I have no evidence it is majority, that is just a guess on my part
Oh and I wouldn't trust the article.
It does us the favor of linking to the
actual court transcript though. The actual facts will be in there.
The actual facts will be in there.
For anyone who wants to do Henry's work for him.
It's difficult to discuss the child without revealing your own personal bias.
Kind of like reporting on Burma/Myanmar.
or Kyiv vs Kiev
I've grown used to saying they for the gendered pronouns, but it was hard on the wiring.
For anyone who wants to do Henry's work for him.
I read the transcript before I posted the link.
No one, however, seems to have bothered to read it before declarin' the site biased and the story as suspect.
That's why I kept askin': is the story wrong?
I knew/know the answer.
Do
you?
I just skimmed the transcript and the facts are essentially true.
It's a Jerry Springer episode.
The dad feels like he's fighting for a principle, but he's losing his family in the process.
Watched two earnest interviews with de-transitioning women in their 20s, and it is terribly sad.
I did not know that: the uterus needs estrogen somehow (I am not a doctor) and f2m are damaging the organ with hormone adjustment. One of the interviews tells the story of an f2m who almost died because the organ failed, five years in, and there was an infection and ... ugh
The dad feels like he's fighting for a principle, but he's losing his family in the process.
Seems to me: the dad simply loves his daughter and desperately wants to stop her from injuring herself.
I think you're right but we don't know if what he's attempting to do is best for her. Brass balls does not equal crystal balls.
we don't know if what he's attempting to do is best for her.
We know this: if dad were to prevail, his daughter, at the worst, is stymied only till she reaches the age of majority. We also know, based on posts and links in this very thread, if she is allowed to proceed, she may be doin' herself long-term, mebbe irreversible, injury.
In context: what seems best for her is clear.
I see your point, and again I agree, but probably at this point the rift is too big to ever bridge.:(
I see your point, and again I agree, but probably at this point the rift is too big to ever bridge.:(
If dad is motivated by love, then I'm thinkin' the rift, as painful as it might be, is not a top priority for him. I imagine he's willin' to suffer separation as long as his daughter is safe (from her own, perhaps transitory, impulses).
Adulthood (legally recognized) is just around the corner for her. It's a shame she can't be persuaded to wait, just a bit.
Ask a teen to wait? Good luck with that. :lol:
And, ask a teenage girl if she is comfortable with her body :|
Ask a teen to wait? Good luck with that. :lol:
I don't ask my 13 year old: I tell him.
'nuff said.
I don't ask my 13 year old: I tell him.
'nuff said.
That doesn't work when they have a stronger legal team than you do.:headshake
The strength of the legal team depends on the variety and type of wokeness of the jurisdiction
That doesn't work when they have a stronger legal team than you do.:headshake
No, it doesn't work when parents are in opposition.
Not applicable in my circumstance.
In
his circumstance: well, mebbe he shoulda picked a better bride.
The strength of the legal team depends on the variety and type of wokeness of the jurisdiction
What a fuckin' curse that nonsense is.
If the kid can't wait until age 18 to change, then the parent shouldn't have to wait until age 18 to kick the kid out of the house (and make the kid a ward of the State).
Lesson to parents, eat them while they're young and tender. :yesnod:
Teens will stick in your craw.
A
new study on the subject. Summary: puberty blockers reduced suicidal ideation.
The study was based on living subjects, so it had no input from successful suicides, and it (at least the abstract) does not mention any information on unsuccessful attempts.
Hell, I wonder if puberty blockers would reduce suicidal ideation for all teens, not just trans teens. Puberty's a bitch.
Hell, I wonder if puberty blockers would reduce suicidal ideation for all teens, not just trans teens. Puberty's a bitch.
It is, so let's not block it. Instead: accelerate it, get 'em through it, lickety-split.
My nephew just did it in like a week.
A new study on the subject. Summary: puberty blockers reduced suicidal ideation.
The study was based on living subjects, so it had no input from successful suicides, and it (at least the abstract) does not mention any information on unsuccessful attempts.
Gotta read the study
20619 transgender adults aged 18 to 36 years
16.9% reported that they ever wanted pubertal suppression = 3485 people
mean age 23.4 years
Of them, 2.5% received pubertal suppression = 87 people
What conclusions are we to draw about "lifetime" suicidal ideation from a 87 people, half of whom are 23 or younger, and all of whom are [at least recently] confused about their gender identity?
Speaking as someone who had suicidal ideation at age 47, I say none at all.
Speaking as someone who had suicidal ideation at age 47
Just for the record, I'm glad you didn't. You're a good dude with a lot of friends in the world who want you to stay in it.
Thank you. You are kind to say so.