There are a lot of things here that could have negative effects in the short and long run ... denying trans people the healthcare they want and need could also have negative effects in the long run ... The way I see it, the policies should be more concerned about the 90+% of trans people who stick with their change, rather than the 3% that decide to permanently detransition later.
Nice side step. You made a very clear statement about how safe puberty blockers are and suggested there is no reason to not give them. You also said if you just stop them then people would go through puberty without and issues and that’s not the case at all.
You can Google it yourself and see that the effects of puberty blockers are widely reported to be not permanent... I thought you were talking about mental health issues for people who decide to detransition later in life...
The way you know a society has gone mad is not that transgenderism is prevalent, but that those who voice concerns about it are widely regarded as hateful.
Most of society doesn't view those who voice concerns as hateful. That's a narrative big pharma is pushing and most people reject it. They're just not talking about it, whereas big pharma is cranking out the propaganda incessantly.
When I say tangible, I mean both literally and something that can be understood as real. We know what homosexual behavior is; we know what heterosexual behavior is; even if it's only agreeable on the most fundamental levels, there is a clear and obvious connection to the terms being used and the ability to understand these terms. What do you mean by observable behavior? How can you describe this as it relates to gender? I question it because the concepts are ambiguous when we try to understand something that is *different* than sex. The tangibility is what separates these two concepts, in my view. Tell me more about the observable behavior. I don't think wearing makeup makes someone a woman; somebody else does...is one of us wrong? Are we both wrong? Are we both right? Or is there some other behavior that you are talking about that is not obvious. I mean, quite literally, that the idea of "gender" as a concept doesn't make sense to me as something distinct from "sex." Can you describe an example of what we're working with here? What does it mean when someone says "they feel like a woman?" How would they know what anybody else feels like other than themselves? Do you consider this to be a required feeling for a male that wants to be considered a woman? Is it possible that the thought is wrong and not the body? But even if we say the thought is acceptable and correct, how does this mentality make somebody a woman? If you have any videos that you think answers questions that people might have, I'd be interested to check it out. A lot of this stuff seems to boil down to personal belief systems; and it reminds me of a time when I was spiritually agnostic. *You* have the right to believe what you want to believe (as do *I*), but there needs to be something agreeably objective to determine if one view is more correct than another. So far, the only objective thing we have is the idea that gender is synonymous with sex. This doesn't mean the referenced feelings don't exist; it just means that maybe we should come up with a different term/concept to try to describe them with than "gender." Go GATORS! ,WESGATORS
My challenge was very specific about your assertion that puberty blocker effects aren’t permanent. It makes no sense to say if a kid is put on puberty blockers at 10 and not stopped until they are 20 there would be no long term effect. The development of secondary sexual characteristics happen with in a window, if that is delayed normal development will not happen.
I don’t know what else I can tell you other than the Mayo Clinic, for example, and like a dozen other respectable sources, say the puberty blockers are reversible and non-permanent. If you don’t want to believe that, I really don’t care…
Whatever you think of any individual decision, I am quite confident you're able to observe that this person isn't presenting herself as a man: The same way a gay person can tell they aren't straight. It's an innate feeling. Is it possible that a gay man's belief that he's attracted to men is wrong? And it isn't the thought that makes somebody a woman. Some people with gender dysphoria don't transition. It's living as a woman that makes the person a woman. The problematic nature of your demand is that it's just as potent when used against gay people. If you doubt what people present themselves as and consider innate feelings to be inadequate, there's nothing more to really say at this stage. Science hasn't reached a point where it can perfectly pinpoint the why yet. Here's a video:
Perhaps you can help explain why a doctor (not a PA - no offense) would tell us otherwise? Keeping in mind I'm on your side here. I'd like to know why in the hell a doctor would sweep this under the rug? I know the answer, but I'd like to hear your take, as I am neither a PA or an MD.
Of course, but "presenting as" isn't relevant in terms of my identification of man/woman. Now, to be clear, if we think about, it most cases in life whether or not a person is a man or a woman, isn't at all relevant. However, there are a few areas where it is absolutely relevant (and I'm fine with the idea that others are willing to consider it not relevant, I can only speak for myself). There are many cases where women "present as" somebody they actually look completely different than (not saying men don't do this, just that I see it more commonly with women; and of course not every woman does this). Things like makeup and camera filters are a factor in that. I don't find "presenting as" to be a reliable indicator on truly getting to know who somebody is. It's not the same because we can describe exactly what a "gay person" means; it's directly related to sexual attraction which is (from my point of view) seemingly unambiguous. We can define "gay" and we can define "straight" and there is no misunderstanding of what these terms mean (is there?). We can do the same with "men" and "women," but only if we attach them to commonly accepted ideas such as "male" and "female." If there is another meaning, how can we describe this meaning? And if we're trying to go away from a binary, why reference terms like "men" and "women" at all when referring to gender? We can never know what goes on inside somebody's mind, that's why we judge based on expression and behavior - but this is for attraction, not for gender identity. Somebody can demonstrate who they are attracted to or even express their sexuality in a way that can be universally understood as "that's homosexuality" or "that's heterosexuality." Where you say heels and makeup = woman; I say looks can be deceiving (DeSantis jokes aside). There's a lot to unpack here, but let's simplify: what does "living as a woman" mean if we're detaching "woman" from "female?" Again, this isn't about doubting whether or not somebody is being honest (I mentioned this in post 136); it's not understanding the identification of what it is they are referring to when they use such terms. Sexual attraction is an obvious concept; The idea of man/woman as distinct from male/female does not appear to carry any universal meaning (that is to say that the meaning is entirely subjective and up to each individual to make said determination as to whether they are or they are not). I don't see the same type of subjectivity when discussing one's sexual attraction. Thank you for the video; it did not answer any of the questions that I have, but it did raise additional thoughts and questions: - she referenced writing with another hand; one can practice and become better at writing with the other hand even to the point of writing better than what was previously their preferred hand. This is true with everything from throwing a baseball to putting on makeup. I don't point this out to nit-pick, just indicating that I don't find this example to be very helpful to understand the nature of what's going on - "and that's what every other girl says" - this isn't true; she's taking things like putting on makeup; wearing clothing designed for women; having long hair as things that make a person a woman and using them to define what "women" means to her; to be clear, I have no problem if this has meaning for her, but it doesn't make her a woman to me. I would never introduce her as a woman to a single friend looking to make a connection. - "when I started going out as a female"..."I wasn't quite female yet" - I'm confused by her choice of words here; if gender is distinct from sex, isn't it appropriate to not claim to be "female?" It's clear to me that she doesn't consider herself a male (biological) and a woman (gender). - use of the term "daughter" brings up another question. Personally, I consider pronouns and words like son/daughter and boy/girl to be related to sex, but I recognize that my preference doesn't have to be another's preference (hopefully the respect is mutual). Whether she considers herself a daughter or a son makes no difference to me in our given situations, just thought it was interesting. Go GATORS! ,WESGATORS
I'm not sure that sexual orientation is so cut and dry. There are people who openly identify as bisexual, and probably even a greater number who identify as either gay or straight generally but have had sexual experiences which go against that general orientation. At the very least, I don't think sexual orientation is entirely binary.
male attraction to male = homosexual female attraction to female = homosexual male attraction to female = heterosexual female attraction to male = heterosexual The basics of sexuality is pretty cut and dry as listed above. Are there additional variations? Absolutely, but the foundation that said variations are based off of are pretty obvious, no? Bisexuality would be a combination of homosexuality and heterosexuality (or if we're doing Venn Diagrams, the intersection of the two main circles). What would man/woman look like in such a presentation of basics as a concept distinct from sex? Go GATORS! ,WESGATORS
I agree mostly with the quoted and it serves as a perfect example of why children cannot consent to puberty blockers and other gender transition medications and procedures. Once you begin medications, you immediately introduce potentially irrevocable harm to the child. What if the child changes how they feel? Happens almost daily in some children. That's part of the beauty of being a child, you can change your mind about your future and be largely unaffected by your shift in direction. As a father, I set the rules for my children. My job is to set them up for success when they hit adulthood. If I was to make such an intentional decision for them prior to adulthood which could haunt them for the rest of their lives, that's abuse. If I was to allow them to do it to themselves before they hit 18, that's abuse. If they want to do this after turning 18, I will love them no differently. That's the point. Keep the kids out of it. Has nothing to do with being anti-trans or anti-LGBTQ.
The average transgender child begins to feel different at the age of six. Some even earlier. If a child at age 12 has been living as the opposite gender for six years, what do you think might happen if they were 100% sure they wanted puberty blockers, but you, as the father, completely refused? Wouldn't that potentially cause irrevocable harm? There is no correct answer here, in my opinion. Yes, there's a chance the child could change his or her mind, but six years is a long time. It's half the kid's life. And if the mental health counselor and medical doctor agreed with the kid to prescribe puberty blockers, then aren't you making yourself to be the bad guy by saying no in this situation? In this situation, you would be setting yourself up for the child cutting you out of his/her life, should your kid make it to 18 in my opinion.
There's nothing I can really say to this because your rationale holds just as true for sexual orientation. If you were a person who believes that being gay is a choice, you could choose to deny what you're observing there too. But you told me earlier that you're able to understand sexual orientation through observation. The same is true here. In fact, there are numerous transgender people out there who are outwardly indistinguishable from cisgender people who share their gender identity. But that's not true. Sexuality also exists on a spectrum. Hell, there are gay men who were married and had children with women. There are gay women who were married and had children with men. There are bisexual people. There are people who might identify as heterosexual but on rare occasions are attracted to people of their same gender and vice versa with homosexual people. You have chosen to make it black and white. But it's not that way in actuality. And bluntly, I don't struggle to understand what transgender means. If somebody tells me they are a trans man or a trans woman, I understand immediately what they mean. But we can know what goes on inside somebody's mind simply by talking to them. I didn't say heels and makeup makes somebody a woman. I said that I can generally tell from looking at a person if they're trying to present themselves as a woman. I know it when I see it. It's all subjective. All of it exists on a spectrum. It comes down to whether one wants to make it simple or complicated.
Ever talk to a parent of a child who as young as 6, who claims to be transgender? I have. And unlike you, I have extreme empathy for what the parents are going through. Here are the 10 questions parents of trans kids often ask themselves. You should read it and maybe you'll stop thinking parents of trans kids are evil. Instead n they are going through something very difficult too, and are doing their best by actually listening to their child's experience, which is recommended by the experts.
