'Puberty Blockers: Yay or Nay'

[MrFanti]

https://www.insider.com/how-my-toddler-came-out-as-trans-to-our-family-2021-9

I saw the above article and the hot topic of puberty blockers came to mind.....

[mildcigar_2001]

I think there is a lot of Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy going on with the parents (especially the mothers) of "trans kids".

I think the "at least do no harm" approach is best until the trans person in question is at least 18.

Even then it is no guarantee.

I was reading today that a certain FTM hollywood star was hearing voices and self harming only a few weeks prior to her mastectomy surgery. If someone is having a psychotic break perhaps that is not the best time to make life altering decisions.

Just saying.

[SanDiegoPervySage]

For minors, nay

[Stavros]

Parental Rights! So scream the Republicans, until the parents want what they think is best for their trans child. When the froth is smeared away, whether it is De Santis or Trump, both want Politicians to make the decisions that previously they said should be made by Parents. I think the word to apply here is 'hypocrisy'.

Child + Parent + Health Care Professional -the trinity of rational decision making. But I do accept there may be young people in dysfunctional families where the services available do not exist, and they live in fear of social hostility and ridicule.

[Robyna93]

with puberty blockers you may have certain issues if you decide to go full op later

[MrFanti]

For minors, nay
As I understand them, they are very "permanent" in effects - correct?

[holzz]

kids transitioning is iffy. they lack the capacity to handle the long-term ramifications of it. but then dyshporia can take a toll and it can be harsh to let them decide once they are near the age of majority.

[Fitzcarraldo]

I don't see any reason to assert my uninformed opinions over parents, doctors, and the children involved. I wish legislators had the same awareness.

[filghy2]

I think the "at least do no harm" approach is best until the trans person in question is at least 18.

You are assuming that there can be no possible harm from not allowing these treatments. I'm wondering what qualifications you have for making that judgement.

Allowing puberty blockers after 18 seems a moot point, given puberty has already passed by that age.

Surely the answer to the question is that there is no simple yes or no. It depends on individual circumstances, so why support a top-down solution? Would you advocate this for any other medical issue?

[holzz]

I don't see any reason to assert my uninformed opinions over parents, doctors, and the children involved. I wish legislators had the same awareness.

they're guided in making laws by doctors.

[Fitzcarraldo]

they're guided in making laws by doctors.

Doctors oppose the laws interfering with providing care to transgender youth. Legislators are guided by their political affiliations and their need for scapegoats.

[Stavros]

they're guided in making laws by doctors.

What medical professional with experience of Gender cases, would agree with the language used by legislators in Oklahoma -not 'Gender Affirming Care', but 'surgical and chemical genital mutilation'; or 'gender disfigurement' in Mississippi?
Gender-affirming care: GOP lawmakers escalate fight with bills seeking to expand scope of bans | CNN Politics (https://edition.cnn.com/2023/02/11/politics/gender-affirming-care-bans-transgender-rights/index.html)

[filghy2]

Some participants in this debate seem to be assuming that a large percentage of people who commence their transition as minors turn out to regret this later. Occasional cases that get highlighted in sections of the media don't tell us anything about the real prevalence of a problem. In fact, the evidence from studies of this issue suggests that the rate of recidivism is a very small percentage of those who commence gender-affirming treatments as minors.

https://www.crikey.com.au/2023/06/15/donald-trump-transgender-children-fact-check/

[filghy2]

they're guided in making laws by doctors.

In that case I'm sure you'd like to share with us the scientific studies that are guiding them.

[MrFanti]

Interesting things coming out of Europe now...

Increasing Number Of European Nations Adopt A More Cautious Approach To Gender-Affirming Care Among Minors
https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuacohen/2023/06/06/increasing-number-of-european-nations-adopt-a-more-cautious-approach-to-gender-affirming-care-among-minors/?sh=62d128147efb

[filghy2]

There's a big difference between a taking cautious approach, which allows these treatments under strict eligibility requirements, and the sledgehammer approach of banning it completely and criminalising doctors and parents. Maybe there's a medical case for re-examining the eligibility requirements, but Republicans don't seem interested in that.

[Stavros]

There's a big difference between a taking cautious approach, which allows these treatments under strict eligibility requirements, and the sledgehammer approach of banning it completely and criminalising doctors and parents. Maybe there's a medical case for re-examining the eligibility requirements, but Republicans don't seem interested in that.

A useful summary, in the light of the decision in Indiana, where a Trump-appointed Judge has blocked the more extreme demands of the governing Party, on the basis that denying Gender Affirming Care to a minor would cause the person harm. No surgery is performed on minors in the State. Whether or not the definition of 'harm' can be restricted to an age-group is a potential legal problem, but it is not possible in 2023 to know if a decision made in June of that year has harmful consequences in 2033, but the principle appears to be sound, and is based on medical rather than political reasoning.

Federal judge blocks much of Indiana's ban on gender-affirming care for minors : NPR (https://www.npr.org/2023/06/16/1182931422/judge-blocks-indiana-ban-gender-affirming-care-minors#:~:text=INDIANAPOLIS%20%E2%80%94%20A%20fede ral%20judge%20issued,effect%20as%20scheduled%20Jul y%201.)