TokenTransGirl
No bio...
User ID: 3226
I mean, if we follow that line of reasoning, I still don't see the problem. You've abandoned your parental responsibility and put it on the school while he's there. Fair enough. I don't see how you get to object when the school then acts in a responsible manner? The school agrees with him that he has a medical condition, and followed normal channels for helping him get help with it. The school has reason to believe you might endanger the kid if you find out, so they're doing the responsible thing and keeping him safe.
If the school runs a cancer awareness program, are you outraged when it turns out one kid does have cancer and gets treatment? What if the kid's parents are big believer in New Age healing crystals, and didn't want their kid to undergo chemo?
Kids don’t have privacy from their parents, especially not at the behest of a third party institution.
Wait, really? What country do you live in where the church is obliged to break the sacred seal of confession and rat kids out? I'm used to people talking about doctor-patient confidentiality and the like.
I certainly think that's a horrible idea. The alternative to kids having someone trusted they can talk to is... not having anyone they can trust to talk to.
I mean, you can say #1 about everything. We can never know the counterfactual of any decision we make. We still have to make decisions. And it's not like there aren't TONS of decisions out there that people DO regret.
#2 doesn't explain the general absence of ex-trans spaces. Keep in mind I'm the sort of person who does look in places like this.
#3: If the suicide rate goes down post-transition, then we have clear evidence that transition helps even if it isn't a perfect cure-all. We have no evidence that "alternate" treatments work. From my own biased standpoint, I'd say we actually have plenty of evidence against alternate treatments. Can you pull up a study from any sort of vaguely-neutral (or positive) organization that suggests a specific alternate treatment actually has anywhere near the success rate in reducing suicide rates?
I'll throw out #4: There are scientific studies on regret rates, and they suggest remarkably low numbers: https://theconversation.com/transgender-regret-research-challenges-narratives-about-gender-affirming-surgeries-220642
I will admit, I have not checked the methodology, but I also haven't seen any studies that suggest a concern here. I'll also say that number is low enough to make me a bit suspicious. I think the real number is probably higher than 1%. But I do think this is pretty solid evidence that, in general, transition results in good outcomes and that if anything, we're being overly cautious.
Yeah, that's some suss methodology
To gather a reliable data set, Do No Harm identified procedure codes and national drug codes (NDC) commonly used in “gender-affirming care.”
i.e. there's absolutely no reason to think these codes aren't also used for other things, they just happen to show up commonly in gender-affirming care.
The article itself notes that this contradicts basically every other study out there.
"Data from various sources, including NPPES and external data providers, was assumed to be accurate and used for enriching the dataset."
"We just assumed this stuff was accurate" should not inspire any confidence in these results
there remains a possibility that some of the billing data may reflect treatments administered for congenital conditions or other non-gender transition-related reasons. Consequently, caution should be exercised when interpreting the data, as these codes may capture a broader range of medical treat
The explicit disclaimer...
Source Data Accuracy: The accuracy of our analysis depends on the quality and reliability of the source data
The other explicit disclaimer...
Note: (...) ‘55970 - Intersex surgery; male to female’. (...) was designated “high confidence that the procedure/drug is used for gender transitions”
Oh, okay, are we including intersex people in this? I thought this was a conversation about transition.
Hair removal by electrolysis
This is listed under surgical codes...
Electrolysis.
I'm sorry to say this report is hot bullshit.
Looks like naraburns link is a lot more reliable: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9555285/ gives us 209 patients over a 7.5 year period, so 30 instead of 5,7000
Unnecessary surgery that removes healthy body parts is mutilation, as are unnecessary hormonal treatments.
I certainly didn't think it was unnecessary. What makes you the expert here?
No one cares, the patient is a minor that doesn't know anything about what they're talking about.
That might be believable if there was a huge number of people who regretted these decisions, but people actually seem pretty consistent. I challenge the idea that a 16 year old doesn't have any idea what they want - 16 is young enough to be tried as an adult or apply for emancipation. In most states, two 16 year olds can have sex, get pregnant, and have a child - a massively life changing decision that involves significantly more severe medical risks. We even allow kids to drive! Traffic accidents are one of the top ten leading causes of death, but we trust kids with it.
Are you saying that's all a mistake? We need to keep kids away from any sort of responsibility or freedom until they're a legal adult?
There is no evidence that any illness is involved.
There's plenty of evidence that this intervention results in positive outcomes. You're talking to one of the positive outcomes right now. I'm not sure what else to call it when you do a medical intervention and it fixes a problem?
Referring to the removal of healthy organs for aesthetic purposes as "mutilation" seems like a supportable framing, but context and charity matter.
Referring to a major medical condition as "aesthetic purposes" also seems pretty uncharitable.
You cannot charitably read this to say "children are being mutilated,"
I disagree. A lot of posters here are in fact doubling down on "actual under 18 children ARE having surgeries". "Children are on the path to making a consenting decision, as a legal adult" really lacks the same oomph, but it would be a lot more honest if that's really what you meant to convey.
When people talk about tobacco companies putting kids on the path to a lifelong smoking addiction, I don't think they mean "kids might take up smoking when they turn 18." They're worried that actual kids are actually smoking cigarettes, right now, as kids.
do not appear to be terribly rare in adolescents aged 12-17
To quote the source: "A total of 209 patients underwent gender-affirming mastectomy between January 1, 2013 and July 31, 2020."
That's 30 people a year. Out of 150,000 trans adolescents, and, what, 25 million adolescents overall. So literally one in a million. I'll admit that's a lot more than I thought, but it's still incredibly, vanishingly rare. Those are exceptional cases, and I'd be extremely shocked to learn that a single one of those was done without parental consent.
I did say "low enough to basically round off to zero", in case you want to argue this is somehow moving the goalposts. I dare say 0.0001% rounds off to zero. Even 209 patients over 150k trans kids gives us 0.1%. So even given your kid is trans, this is still a vanishingly small subset of the discussion.
So, again, for starters: none of that is mutilation, just regular surgery.
Second, right there in the guidelines: this is the section for adolescents. Children is section 7. When your actual source makes the distinction between kids and teenagers, I feel like it's a bit disingenuous to keep calling them "kids"
Third, that's the section on "treatments requested by the patient". It's not putting someone on a path when they are already on that path and merely asking for help.
I don't see how this is different from anyone else trying to get medical treatment for their illness. Would you be horrified to learn that we also let children be treated for cancer and depression? Should there be a minimum age for those, too?
I already banned WhiningCoil
Okay, fair enough. My complaint was entirely that if "child mutilation" was considered acceptably charitable, I think I was more than matching that level of charity. If we're in agreement that "child mutilation" is an insulting and deeply uncharitable description, then my objection is pretty well resolved.
you oscillate between "this isn't happening" and "it's good, actually"
I do think I've been consistent in my stance: SRS is a surgery like any other, and calling it "mutilation" is ridiculous hyperbole. Calling it "child mutilation" is doubly ridiculous, since as far as I know, kids under 18 genuinely are not having surgery. I'm not saying kids don't transition, I'm saying they don't get surgery under 18, and that it's not mutilation.
If someone really has a source for SRS being common in kids, I'd love to see it. I've tried to find numbers, and basically every source has said "low enough to basically round off to zero."
Are you opposed to all surgeries, then? Cutting out someone's heart is mutilation. It's always been mutilation. It will always be mutilation. Calling it a "pacemaker installation" doesn't change the thing one whit. We are creating heartless cyborgs out there! Why aren't you concerned about that too?
Yes, they are. They literally are, hundreds if not thousands a year.
You are wrong. This is not the case.
As always: citation needed? What jurisdiction are you in that allows this? Do you have any actual articles speaking to that? The world is a big place, and I'll admit I don't know every region of it.
don't put words in my mouth.
I didn't. I said IF that's your stance. If it's not your stance, feel free to provide some actual examples of what we could have done.
No, it's upset that there are Men at the Women's club.
Why? LLL shifted to invite them in. No one is forcing LLL here. To quote the exact quote here in this thread: "LLL’s focus has subtly shifted to include men". Why are you so upset at the women's club voluntarily choosing to shift their focus?
If the prostate support group wants to evolve into a cancer support group, is that really so awful?
Right, but what's wrong with LLL being the ones to do it, if they so choose?
If the article was "law requires LLL to admit male members", I could see why you're upset, but this seems to be the organization voluntarily changing. Not once does the article suggest anyone is forcing their way in.
Originally you said it doesn't happen
No, I said no one is getting mutilated. That has nothing to do with custody. I expressed skepticism about the idea that the majority of these cases, or even a significant minority of them, are really just "failing to support".
The California law said that pronouns could be a factor, not that they were the only factor. That seems reasonable to me. If I kept misgendering you, I'm sure you'd consider it insulting. I'm not sure why insulting your kid and being generally hostile to their medical needs wouldn't be a factor in such a decision.
A custody case also isn't a locale "taking a kid", it's a court deciding which parent provides the better environment for the kid. The whole process is initiated by the other parent, not the courts. If courts were just swooping up and fostering kids because a teacher reported a pronoun violation, we'd be having a very different conversation.
There's a recurring theme here, where responsibility is out-sourced from the people actually initiating things. "Schools" don't transition kids; kids transition. "Courts" don't take away kids, the other parent is bothered enough to demand a divorce and argue for full custody. The courts aren't responsible for someone's wife thinking they're a shitty husband. This doesn't just happen out of the blue. Another adult, one deeply involved in the situation, looked at it and said "I need to protect my child from this person".
Again, it's not the school doing this. The school is not "secretly transitioning" anyone. The kid is secretly transitioning, and the school is merely respecting their privacy.
The alternative is that the kid doesn't tell the school because they know their privacy won't be respected, and has absolutely no adult support. That seems way worse to me.
helping them work through their gender dysphoria (if it is really gender dysphoria), becoming comfortable in their bodies, and perhaps choose to transition when they are an adult if they still feel that's what they need.
That's... basically exactly what the actual standards of care say to do? You start with therapy and just discussing the issue to get a feel for where the kid really is. You don't just drop them on HRT instantly. There's puberty blockers, so that they can make an informed choice as an adult in either direction, rather than make any permanent changes. For the kids who have a really clear sense of who they are, AND whose parents support it, you might see HRT before 18, but again, the parent IS actually involved in that decision. Basically no one is getting surgery before 18. Getting surgery usually takes YEARS of waiting, even as an adult who knows exactly what they want.
What part of that process are you objecting to?
Refusing to change the pronouns they use for their son or daughter might upset the child, but it's not abuse!
Would you be okay if I consistently misgendered people on this forum? You're an adult who can walk away from the conversation, so presumably this is a thousand times less bad than having it come from your own parents. I think most people here would get pretty reasonably upset with me if I leaned into trolling like that.
And if you won't tolerate it here, why in the world should we expect kids to tolerate it?
wearing binders
I mean, c'mon, you're objecting to an article of clothing? Teach the kid how to do it safely rather than forcing them to risk it with ace bandages and overly tight compressions.
planning to get surgery
What happened to "perhaps choose to transition when they are an adult if they still feel that's what they need"?
You "get the sense" that most of the kids are quite happy with the decision, but this seems to be vibes and personal bias.
I read scientific studies, hang out in trans communities, keep my ear out for about news, and so forth. I mean, if nothing else, I'm involved in numerous trans communities, have numerous trans friends, and presumably have a much better vantage point into the community than you do. I'm the sort of person that shows up here, looking for people who disagree with me, so I'm clearly not cherry-picking my sources. Short of being a credentialed expert, I'm not sure how you get a better perspective than mine?
If people really regret it so much, it should not be nearly this difficult for me to find those people.
I have yet to see a trans activist who can actually dispute his numbers and his deep dives into studies on the subject.
Is there some specific source here, or am I just supposed to spend a week deep-diving him? I'm happy to take a peek, but I will absolutely admit that I don't think he's a source worth investing a lot of time in, right now.
I am responding to what was literally said. They picked the word "mutilation", not me. There is no actual mutilation happening.
If you want to discuss "children are transitioning", we can have a conversation about that. But that's a very different conversation from "children are being mutilated."
Would you really allow this sort of insulting language to fly in the other direction? Can I talk about how conservatives are routinely voting to kill women? Is it fair to say conservatives have once again elected a fascist rapist?
If you can only provide one example, that's hardly supporting your case. If anything, that suggests the opposite: this is so incredibly rare that it made the news.
The medical community, the scientific community, and the community of people who have actually undergone the process all recommend it, so I'm not sure on what grounds you would claim that it's not a valid medical treatment.
Removing obstacles from a path is not "putting them on a path". Do you object to roads, because they put criminals on the path towards bank robbery?
Which "mutilations" had the minimum age requirements changed? What are the new requirements?
We're not a hive mind. Some of us did speak up. Most of us have more important issues to speak up on. And we didn't want to get dogpiled either.
(And honestly, for a lot of us, when we do speak up, we don't get heard. The loudest 1% dominates both sides of the conversation right now, which sucks)
Funny how you can't actually quote the law or provide any reference to it. I bet the word mutilation isn't in there even once.
I never said otherwise. I just said that democracy offers more avenues for recourse than a dictatorship. The bullet box is available regardless of government. The ballot box is unique to democracy.
I do not think it is an accident that countries with the ballot box also exhibit the other protections I mentioned. Democracy certainly isn't sufficient, and it might not technically even be required, but it certainly seems to help.
You're the one that said the schools are "secretly transitioning" kids, like the kid wasn't involved in the process.
You haven't made any argument for butchery - it's not like kids are getting surgery. The usual treatment for under 18 is hormone blockers at most, and often just a safe space. My understanding is that it's still illegal to prescribe actual HRT without parental consent. All of this ignoring that people on HRT generally stay on it, and prefer their new life.
actions that make it more likely that someone will reach this endpoint in the future could be fairly described as putting them on a "path towards mutilation"?
In the sense that it's fair to describe doctors as "horrific butchers who have somehow gotten away with a brazen series of stabbings and mutilations", sure. Which is to say, no, that's not a fair way of phrasing things at all. That's an incredibly insulting way of phrasing it, and I can't imagine anyone who says that actually has a good opinion of trans people / doctors.
the poster you are responding to didn't claim anything about interest or consent, did they?
They said the school was transitioning them. The school is not the active party in this. The kid is. The kid is transitioning. The school is merely keeping that secret. That is a fairly important distinction.
If you are willing to use deception to make the parents make a sacrifice (of money? time? support?) that they would not make willingly
I don't really have any sympathy for the parent's "unwilling" sacrifice here. I expect adults to handle their obligations responsibly. Where I come from, becoming a parent means you're signing up to support the kid until they're 18. Sometimes that means dealing with twins. Sometimes that means dealing with a disability. That's what you signed up for when you became a parent. Six months of supporting your kid isn't likely to be anywhere near as bad as what you're putting the kid through.
I also think kids deserve a space where they can safely explore the idea without committing. I'd much rather a kid try on dresses for 6 months and work it out of their system, then go back to being a proper upright conservative. It would be awful if instead, that same kid get disowned and lost their family over what turned out to be a pretty typical childhood phase.
And, in the end, I'd absolutely support a process where kids could get placed in a safe alternate environment as needed, but sadly we do not have such a system yet. Foster care sucks. I can't blame a kid for trying to sneak by until they turn 18, get a job, and can move out safely. Even if you only expect to get a few months before you're caught, that's still time to try and line up someplace safer to go.
- Prev
- Next
There are exceptions, yes. The ones I've seen all involve parental consent.
Is your complaint just that the SOC aren't being followed rigorously enough? Or would you still be upset even if they were being followed to the letter?
More options
Context Copy link