Can Kids Consent to Hormone Blockers?

I'm with the nasty conservatives on this.

I'm not sure about the medical grounds for "gender dysphoria" - whether it's genetic, psychological, cultural or other. And nor are researchers.
If you're an adult, that doesn't matter. It's your choice, you can seek to be identified however you like. I don't mind, and nor should anyone else.

But messing with a childs natural physical development is a no-go and seems to me tantamount to abuse.

The insistence that hormone blockers and other "treatments" are employed on kids seem to me to be borne of politics rather than medicine. Extemist identity politickers are obsessed with gender and insist that we accept their views on the phenomenon - skipping the necessary scientific research on same - insisting that everyone who might raise questions is being discriminatory and illiberal. Having arrived prematurely at a dogmatic view regarding adults with this condition, it would be inconsistent of them not to extend it to children.

We’ve just had consultation on PSHE policy at primary school this year. One thing that gave me pause for thought is that transgenderism is proposed to be taught at Year 4 (8-9 year olds), but physical puberty not taught until Year 5 (9-10 year olds).
I just feel it needs careful handling. I understand kids need unbiased information about these issues but for gender identity and the complexities of it to be drip fed before “your body is going to do this soon and it’s normal” seems odd.

Fact: "some people regret transitioning and it drives them to suicide,"
Motte: "so we shouldn't socially push people to transition"
Bailey: "and should prevent kids from being prescribed puberty blockers."
Ad homenim: "14thDoctor doesn't care."

You could be a case study for how to debate badly to the point of appearing disingenuous. Seriously where do you learn this stuff, Prager U?

I have to say, the FF-matthunter back-and-forth in particular is like watching a cripple fight, where both cripples are blind.

matthunter -- if it's syndicated through podcast apps it's a podcast, regardless of medium. Podcast apps play video as well as audio, and they're syndicated the same way. There's nothing more grating than a pedant who's wrong. FFS.

FF -- quit fucking engaging with the stupid shit he posts about podcasts and ignoring his substantive points, like post 133. You are not scoring the points you apparently think you are.

Puberty blockers are largely harmless, AFAICT from this thread -- several apparent citations to the contrary seem to be (I suspect deliberately) conflating puberty blockers with HRT. That a large majority of people who get them eventually transition is a pretty good sign that we're giving them to the right people.The fact that not everyone does means that it's the right treatment for apparent dysphoria, contra HRT in kids, because it doesn't leave permanent damage if it turns out it wasn't an issue transitioning could solve.

Of course, if anyone has any evidence of harm from puberty blockers alone, by all means, share it, and we can talk about the actual cost-benefit tradeoffs (warning: it'll have to be a pretty big cost to outweigh "prevents 50% chance of suicide attempt from ostracism", especially if your alternative doesn't involve a practical way to change the entire culture we live in so trans people don't feel so ostracized or unable to express themselves). But none of this "puberty blockers lead to HRT and HRT is dangerous therefore no puberty blockers" bullshit. Next thing you're going to tell me is that radiation therapy for a tumor often leads to surgery with general anesthesia, and general anesthesia is dangerous therefore no radiation therapy for cancer.

The point I was getting at is that we don’t make policy decisions or serious life altering decisions based whether or not someone may commit suicide. That is an emotional appeal not based in science. Apparently you missed that, but I’m sorry I don’t meet your debate standards, professor.

Aside from the fact that we absolutely do, all the time, (see: war on drugs, opioid crisis, suicide nets on bridges, crisis hotlines, etc., etc.) you've provided scant evidence that puberty blockers are any more life-altering than puberty at a natural time.

More at the link.
https://world.wng.org/content/doctors_puberty_blockers_are_a_dangerous_experiment

2nd quote block: You quote wholesale from an explicitly anti-transgender website and expect to be taken seriously? You're either fucking gullible as hell or a bigot.

1st: The New Atlantis is not peer reviewed and is a branch of the social conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center. Do better. WNG's homepage has a feature on how intelligent design is right. Do way, way better.

These are not scientific evidence. The inner citation at least purports to be a literature review, the rest isn't evidence at all.

ETA: From The New Atlantis "paper":

This is not language you see in a scientific paper.

ETA2: I skimmed the whole thing. There's a whole lot of "nobody knows" and not a single "here's a case where there was definitely harm."

Do you even read your own sources?

Oh, and BULL. SHIT. that you're not arguing for a ban. All your sources are. You disingenuous fuck.

So because my sources argue for a ban that automatically means I’m arguing for a ban? Talk about logical fallacy. Besides where did you see where they’re arguing for a ban because I didn’t see that. Anyway, I won’t tolerate insults so we’re done here. You’ll be ignored from now on.

"We can't do this thing that would immensely help people, because 1 person out of 100 might wish they hadn't done it. Never mind that getting hormone blockers is far easier to reverse than the biological effects of not getting them, and never mind that the odds of the thing I'm terrified of are far smaller than the odds of the positive effects. I'm irrationally worked up about this because Reasons, and I'm going to start yelling obscenities if you try to use logic."

The NHS in the UK changed it’s guidance on puberty blockers last year from saying they were “fully reversible” to “we don’t know”:-
https://www.nhs.uk/mental-health/conditions/gender-dysphoria/treatment/
I guess that is to do with avoiding future litigation, but it does also make me wonder why the u-turn if there weren’t concerns about any long-standing effects.

You "prevent"suicide by not killing yourself. "Give this to me or I will kill myself" is narcissistic emotional blackmail.

To go back to the original question, the answer is "no." Children cannot consent to things. That's part of being a child. The parents make those decisions until the child reaches their age of majority, however that is defined in that particular culture.

This is pure nonsense. The fact that someone (or a group of someones) is at high risk for suicide is an extremely good reason for changing the policies and/or altering the life situation that leads to that risk.

I would go so far as to say that someone who doesn't agree is a very dangerous individual and, fortunately, is not in charge of policy for dealing with said high-suicide-risk groups.

This is called "assigning motivation". People do not commit suicide because they don't get their way. If they do, .. . well, I don't know what. But, that would be more akin to "cutting off one's nose to spite their face". But, much more severe.

People commit suicide because they are so depressed, sad, unhappy, that they feel the world would be better off without their existence. It's not because they are looking for attention.

Then it's blackmail by proxy. Threatening suicide on someone else's behalf, as a shameless, weaselly way of arguing for a particular policy.

Ah. I see where you're going.

I agree that an argument to be made in favor of allowing prepubescent children the option of puberty blockers is emotional blackmail. However, the stat that teenagers who experience gender dysphoria are X times likely to commit suicide absolutely should be taken into account when making the decision.

Mate, you realize the LGB Alliance that pushes the anti-trans laws in Britain are as much a propaganda hate group as our NRA? Like, I listened to the BBC via our NPR and was stunned that they once had an open TERF there to debate trans right. Even in the United States, the level of trans hate is not nearly so normalized as it is there, where JK Rowling donates a sizeable amount of her fortune to get those hate laws passed.

Do you really want to be on the side of people that think we ought to bomb any country full of brown.people as we please?

You are better than this.

See my comment to Rick about the LGB Alliance.

The NHS is not immune to propaganda and the whims of the government anymore than our own CDC is.

Arguing with UA-

Anyone- Don't go down that path, it's bad.

UA- Oh you mean "don't go there, girlfriend!! " how fucking obnoxious!! You don't tell me what to do!! I'll do what I want!! I'm a fucking adult who can make his own goddamned decisions!! You PC police think you can control what I d...*falls into a trap door leading to a tree shredder*

Anyone- Happy fucking landings then.

What anti-trans laws are there here?
I’ve been sleepwalking to a lot of this stuff, it was only when there was an outcry about JK Rowling that I realised it was an activist “thing”. I know there are pushbacks against the self-Cert ID, and an outcry about women’s’ shelters losing funding for not being inclusive and then of course the Keira Bell case.
Although I understand there are concerns, I don’t get a general feeling of an anti trans sentiment. We are encouraged to identify our pronouns, gender identity is written into corporate documents etc.

Which is what I posted in post#188, but it was conveniently ignored.

Not necessarily - it may mean that the act of giving puberty blockers increases the sense of gender dysphoria in of itself - after all, you are blocking traditional hormones that create sexual development, that is their purpose.

And while gender and sex aren't direct overlaps on a venn diagram, clearly they have some relation.

I can see doing so in direct examples of genetic variabilty, when we can positively assign a direct correlation between a genetic variance and expression of gender dyphoria.

It becomes a different issue if it is a socially driven issue.

Just googled Kiera Bell.

So, without a full account of the entire story ..., If someone starts at age 9, 10, 11 stating they should be a different gender, then yea, they probably shouldn't be. I've said before on this board that when I was that age - and in the 70s, being a "tomboy" was much more of an outcast (kids these days, in most countries, are encouraged to be who they are) - that I also thought I should have been born a boy. But, after puberty, I've ... really almost forgot all about that. In fact, it wasn't until a couple years ago when Nova brought the subject up on this board that I even remembered.

So, the doctors in the Kiera Bell case should have been asking if s/he had had those same feelings since s/he was a toddler.

*the "s/he" was used as I'm not clear which gender Kiera Bell is using right now.

As for the topic at hand, I fully admit to not knowing enough about this particular subject to form a strong opinion on it. But to the extent that a teenager, their parent(s), and their doctor(s) agree to a particular medical treatment, I really wouldn't lose much sleep over it. I don't particularly believe in the right-wing boogeyman that Joe Rogan, Federal Farmer, and UA are trying to push (woke parents are forcing their kids to be trans because it's hip). This just reeks of further "transmen are peeing in front of your daughters" transphobia that the right has been obsessed over.

Yeah, this pretty much is my (admittedly uneducated on the topic) opinion.

I think it raises interesting questions about how we accidentally reinforce gender stereotypes on children and they express them back to us. Seems to me exposure to direct and over-sexualised content from a young age has a lot to answer for too, especially on girls. But, I also believe that dysphoria is real, crippling and deserves sympathy and treatment. Nuance on this conversation is lost and it seems you're either sorted into the TERF or Trans Rights Activist pile which is annoying when you're trying to navigate your way around it.

Exactly. In the thread mentioned in my post, a couple years ago when Nova first brought up the subject of children transitioning, I mentioned my reservations and why and was immediately accused of being anti-trans.

Okay...and what has that got to do with me?

I doubt JK Rowling wants to bomb brown people. She certainly was very unfairly treated over this issue, where the equivalent of an online lynch mob was set on her for politely expressing some disagreement with this whole agenda.