# UK high-court rules under 16s can't take puberty blockers without court review and approval



## Doran754 (Dec 2, 2020)

Yesterday the UK high court decided under 16's can't give informed consent about puberty blockers.

'Children under 16 with gender dysphoria are unlikely to be able to give informed consent to undergo treatment with puberty-blocking drugs, three High Court judges have ruled'

One of the claimants, Keira Bell, said she was "delighted" by the judgment.

Ms Bell, 23, from Cambridge, had been referred to the Tavistock Centre, which runs the UK's only gender-identity development service (GIDS), as a teenager and was prescribed puberty blockers aged 16.

She argued the clinic should have challenged her more over her decision to transition to a male as a teenager.

In a ruling, Dame Victoria Sharp, sitting with Lord Justice Lewis and Mrs Justice Lieven, said: "It is highly unlikely that a child aged 13 or under would be competent to give consent to the administration of puberty blockers.

"It is doubtful that a child aged 14 or 15 could understand and weigh the long-term risks and consequences of the administration of puberty blockers."

At a High Court hearing in October, lawyers representing the claimants said there was "a very high likelihood" children who start taking hormone blockers will later begin taking cross-sex hormones, which they say cause "irreversible changes"

The NHS says It welcomes the clarity and will implement the decision immediately. 

Thoughts? Personally I'm very happy with this decision. For once a legal decision isn't pandering and is looking out for the health and mental wellbeing of our children.


----------



## Seliph (Dec 2, 2020)

Me and every other trans person I have spoken to has said they would do anything to get puberty blockers as soon as possible if they had the ability to when they were younger. Growing up and feeling the changes puberty imposes on your body against your will is a horrible experience for trans people, even traumatic, and puberty blockers are the best option to mitigate those unwanted changes. This is just another one of the UK's numerous attacks on the existence of trans people.


----------



## Seliph (Dec 2, 2020)

PipeWarp said:


> -snip-


https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiew...but-will-open-three-new-gics/?sh=7f255fdf12d3
https://www.stonewall.org.uk/system/files/lgbt_in_britain_-_trans_report_final.pdf
https://www.theguardian.com/society...gland-face-soul-destroying-wait-for-treatment
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...s-reforms-theresa-may-diagnosis-a9565001.html
Plus the UK is home to one of the biggest anti-trans feminist movements, aka TERFs (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists)
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/07/opinion/terf-trans-women-britain.html

It is not very easy being trans in the UK. I am not from the UK myself but ask anyone publically trans in the UK and I think you'll find lots more info than I could ever give you.


----------



## Deleted member 513667 (Dec 2, 2020)

Seliph said:


> https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiew...but-will-open-three-new-gics/?sh=7f255fdf12d3
> https://www.stonewall.org.uk/system/files/lgbt_in_britain_-_trans_report_final.pdf
> https://www.theguardian.com/society...gland-face-soul-destroying-wait-for-treatment
> 
> ...


Thanks, i'll start reading them tonight!



Seliph said:


> It is not very easy being trans in the UK. I am not from the UK myself but ask anyone publically trans in the UK and I think you'll find lots more info than I could ever give you.


I do actually have a trans friend, i'll talk to them about it.


----------



## DevonTheRaymaniac (Dec 2, 2020)

I'm not trans and I do not know any trans people personally, but what I can say is that I hope the best for transgender people, and that if this truly is a problem for the trans community, it gets sorted out as soon as possible


----------



## Seliph (Dec 2, 2020)

PipeWarp said:


> I do actually have a trans friend, i'll talk to them about it.


That's good to hear!
Here's a Twitter thread from Jay Hulme, a trans poet from the UK that I think will be pretty enlightening.
The UK is so transphobic that at least one trans person has been granted asylum in a foreign country because of it.They didn't just move (though many of us do), they were Granted Asylum.— Jay Hulme (@JayHulmePoet) November 18, 2020


----------



## AmandaRose (Dec 2, 2020)

I would say what you are saying is true for the rest of the UK but not in Scotland. The Scottish government does a heck of a lot for the trans community but yes they could do a bit more. We have very little incidents of transphobic abuse ect. Unlike when I travel to England and Wales where the amount of abuse is I see is shocking.


----------



## Seliph (Dec 2, 2020)

AmandaRose said:


> I would say what you are saying is true for the rest of the UK but not in Scotland. The Scottish government does a heck of a lot for the trans community but yes they could do a bit more. We have very little incidents of transphobic abuse ect. Unlike when I travel to England and Wales where the amount of abuse is I see is shocking.


Oh! I didn't know that about Scotland, that's good to hear because I've always wanted to travel there.


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 2, 2020)

For any medical test there are at least four outcomes (not two as some think)

1) Positive positive. Aka yes you have gonorrhoea and actually do.
2) Positive negative. Aka no you don't have gonorrhoea and actually you are clean.
3) False positive. Aka yes you have gonorrhoea but actually you are clean.
4) False negative. Aka no you don't have gonorrhoea but actually you do have it.

It gets marginally more complex for things like counts, levels and of course there are many other factors (a mass of 100kg is not much if you are a giant rugby player, an awful lot if you are a tiny woman that works in an office) that... it is almost like being a medic is considered a hard profession.

Some might take exception to the classification as a medical issue above but I would argue if you are taking serious big boy (or girl as the case may be) chemicals then you are within their purview, not to mention the maths underpinning it still applies. Others seem to opt for "but the numbers of false positives are low", which I may or may not want to question, but rolling with the assumption it is then you do get to ask the next question. Estimates are tricky here but if 1% of the population are transexual then 1% of 1% is still 6000 people (I later contemplate the nature of anecdotes would you wish someone a false positive any more than you would wish them death?). Or if there are 700000 people born per year (and no genetical, social* or environmental factors) these days then 7000 per year might be transexual and thus 70 per year false positive if 1% failure rate (which is good for a medical test, never mind a psychological one). Some also argue 1% is actually a low estimate of the population count as well which does not improve numbers here.

*there are those that would claim it is socially contagious (divorce, fatness, depression, smoking, desire to be autistic/Asperger's, desire to be a sociopath... many things nominally are). We can play with stats again if you want on how 7000 per year vs 17,000 state primary schools means the clusters (never mind urban-rural and FTM vs MTF variances) some have noted speak to either something in the water, massive under accounting/estimation of total counts, a localised genetic trait or potentially contagious psychology. I can leave that as an aside for now though.

Among medics there is also the principle of "first, do no harm".
For this we get to weigh the positives against the negatives.

What are the harms done if the person is false positive as transexual and later comes to regret the decision. If it can be reversed that is one thing but at the same time if you deny someone their formative years it is generally viewed as bad by psychologists. If it is hard (time, cost, end results obtained... there is a long list of considerations), if not impossible, to reverse then that is a whole different kettle of fish.
What are the harms in allowing such a person with positive positive to go through puberty? There are plenty of conditions that see people have to wait to adulthood to obtain medical treatment.
What are the positives to allowing a positive positive to get such treatment? There should be plenty of data on life satisfaction type metrics for those that did (late treatment, before availability, false negatives later corrected, simple opt out) to compare against. This can also include abilities to achieve "passing" type results, if indeed that is a desirable outcome (we might also get to consider FTM vs MTF in such a scenario too as things change quite radically there, both in numbers and results).
Are there any alternatives, need not be as "effective" (or effective in the case of positive positive). This can include additional counselling, milder chemicals to lessen puberty changes, chemicals to have people ignore or lessen effects of dysphoria until a later date (and side effects of those). Also any additional research to reduce false positives and negatives.

What those that say "they would have done anything" is worth taking into account (if nothing else an estimate for the black market size or extent by which seeking behaviour might occur), however you also risk variations on the theme of sunk cost fallacy, post hoc justification and similar such psychological traps. Or if you prefer the plural of anecdote is not data. It is a hard thing to assess but never the less we try.

This is also before we consider the actual claims of the case if indeed those supposed to be treating did railroad people (medics will be the first to tell you every cardiologist thinks it is a heart problem, every neurologist a brain, every surgeon wants to cut...) and did not due due diligence, or indeed if the current levels required to call it due diligence are in fact too lax (if "too many", and especially if too many clearly not edge cases, are slipping through the cracks then it hardly speaks to a robust system).

This is the sort of logic (and a massively simplified snapshot) the medics and legal people (which might well be medics in their own right, have not checked here though but quite often they do keep a bunch of them with domain expertise to do things) will be employing.
I would run that analysis before I make claims of bigotry, especially in a country wherein the transition itself might be paid for by the health service (one notoriously averse to anything optional which presumably means they consider it a valid thing to be doing), where not giving someone a job, loan, services, renting a place or similar on such a basis will get you a slap by the courts, and while I would consider the notion of "hate speech" laws to be ridiculous in the extreme (makes you an arsehole, does not make you a criminal) never the less features in such things.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 2, 2020)

Seliph said:


> Me and every other trans person I have spoken to has said they would do anything to get puberty blockers as soon as possible if they had the ability to when they were younger. Growing up and feeling the changes puberty imposes on your body against your will is a horrible experience for trans people, even traumatic, and puberty blockers are the best option to mitigate those unwanted changes. This is just another one of the UK's numerous attacks on the existence of trans people.


You should also speak to the number of people that thought they were trans but realized they are not once they got older. If you want a more complete non biased perspective.

Or better yet look at data instead of anecdotal evidence. Most desist once they get older and many turn out to be gay instead.


----------



## AmandaRose (Dec 2, 2020)

FAST6191 said:


> while I would consider the notion of "hate speech" laws to be ridiculous in the extreme (makes you an arsehole, does not make you a criminal) never the less features in such things.


You really should research the damage verbal abuse can do to someone's mental wellbeing if you believe hate speech should not be legal.





SG854 said:


> You should also speak to the number of people that thought they were trans but realized they are not once they got older. If you want a more complete non biased perspective.
> 
> Or better yet look at data instead of anecdotal evidence. Most desist once they get older and many turn out to be gay instead.


Most actually don't detransition the number that do are less than 1%. And its mostly people in the early stages of transitioning.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1102686


If fact just seen that A 2018 survey of WPATH (World Professional Association for Transgender Health) surgeons found that approximately 0.3% of patients who underwent transition-related surgery later requested detransition-related surgical care.


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 2, 2020)

AmandaRose said:


> You really should research the damage verbal abuse can do to someone's mental wellbeing if you don't believe hate speech should not be illegal.



Maybe.
The trouble is it is almost completely arbitrary, unknowable beforehand, changing with time (even more so if people decide to invent workarounds, and they will) and varies between people from none other than wasted time to simple everyday word renders them in particular rocking in the corner (or maybe violent outburst).

To that end it is going to be incredibly hard to enforce, manage and predict, even if I did not go with the idea that free speech is not a better ideal to hold to than hoping someone's feelings did not get hurt.

Edit. As for detransition stats. Fractions of percent (never mind in the high tens) for populations of hundreds of thousands is a lot of people that are considerably troubled. Drugs have been withdrawn, treatments have been stopped, companies bankrupted and more besides over far less.


----------



## AmandaRose (Dec 2, 2020)

FAST6191 said:


> Maybe.
> The trouble is it is almost completely arbitrary, unknowable beforehand, changing with time (even more so if people decide to invent workarounds, and they will) and varies between people from none other than wasted time to simple everyday word renders them in particular rocking in the corner (or maybe violent outburst).
> 
> To that end it is going to be incredibly hard to enforce, manage and predict, even if I did not go with the idea that free speech is not a better ideal to hold to than hoping someone's feelings did not get hurt.


Its not that their feelings get hurt its the fact that it can cause mental damage to them. There is a shit load of research that shows verbal abuse is just as bad as physical abuse and that the damage lasts longer from verbal abuse. We are not a robots with no feelings that can simply say IT'S JUST WORDS.


----------



## Ericthegreat (Dec 2, 2020)

Sorry but as a community as a whole weve decided there is an age to make your own decisions, unless we let people drink/smoke/sign a contract at earlier ages, I cant see children making any other decisions either.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



FAST6191 said:


> For any medical test there are at least four outcomes (not two as some think)
> 
> 1) Positive positive. Aka yes you have gonorrhoea and actually do.
> 2) Positive negative. Aka no you don't have gonorrhoea and actually you are clean.
> ...


----------



## DBlaze (Dec 2, 2020)

Personally i'm against anything that implies needing to take medication of any sort to force or block something that is supposed to be natural, unless you're curing a disease.
Take that as you like.


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 2, 2020)

AmandaRose said:


> Its not that their feelings get hurt its the fact that it can cause mental damage to them. There is a shit load of research that shows verbal abuse is just as bad as physical abuse and that the damage lasts longer from verbal abuse. We are not a robots with no feelings that can simply say IT'S JUST WORDS.



And there are those that walk away more or less bored with the situation, and those that can't debate hard topics, and indeed those that might find their speech compelled (if we are staying vaguely on topic then should using the "wrong" pronouns be punishable by law?).

The easier solution then is some people are going to get hurt. Sucks but it happens. Is it not better to have those suffer a bit and instead be able to actually have a discussion?


----------



## AmandaRose (Dec 2, 2020)

FAST6191 said:


> And there are those that walk away more or less bored with the situation, and those that can't debate hard topics, and indeed those that might find their speech compelled (if we are staying vaguely on topic then should using the "wrong" pronouns be punishable by law?).
> 
> The easier solution then is some people are going to get hurt. Sucks but it happens. Is it not better to have those suffer a bit and instead be able to actually have a discussion?


Important discussions can be had without the use of hate speech.


----------



## BeniBel (Dec 2, 2020)

As a psychologist, who deals a lot with trans teens, I can only fully agree with this. No important or life-altering decision should actually be allowed under the age of 25, when the brain has fully developed. In my opinion, no child under the age of 16 can ever be able to trully understand the consequences of their actions, and should be protected against themselves.

It's not easy for teenagers dealing with congruence, but there are other courses of action that should be explored way before even talking about hormones therapy or surgery.

Speaking out of experience, often trans feelings have an underlying cause, that goes away once the root of the issue is tackled. Transition also rarely yields a positive outcome, and has a high chance of resulting in depression or even suicide.


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 2, 2020)

AmandaRose said:


> Important discussions can be had without the use of hate speech.


Trouble is it is an arbitrary definition that varies between location, time and even group you are talking to.
Also do we make an exception for discussing the terms themselves? For jokes? For exceptions in jokes? For art?

Being arbitrary makes it difficult, if not impossible, to enforce, even more so if you allow a selectively permeable membrane.


----------



## jimbo13 (Dec 2, 2020)

The bigotry makes my soul hurt, I can think of no group more equipped to make life altering decisions and upend a natural human biological process using powerful hormone therapies than pre-pubescent minors.  What could possibly go wrong?


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 2, 2020)

BeniBel said:


> As a psychologist, who deals a lot with trans teens, I can only fully agree with this. No important or life-altering decision should actually be allowed under the age of 25, when the brain has fully developed. In my opinion, no child under the age of 16 can ever be able to trully understand the consequences of their actions, and should be protected against themselves.



That gets hard, and potentially expensive for society.

I mean I have seen the science, seen the stats on car crashes ( https://aaafoundation.org/rates-mot...-relation-driver-age-united-states-2014-2015/ ), seen how the military (who want everybody they can and otherwise have no qualms about sending hundreds to their death and will waste millions given half a chance) will not allow you in some of the fun roles until you are 25, have seen the stats on learning, on any number of major life decisions vs outcomes ( https://ifstudies.org/blog/want-to-avoid-divorce-wait-to-get-married-but-not-too-long/ ), and on and on and on.
At the same time having disaffected and bored youth doing not so much until they are 25, even more so if age at first birth is rocketing up... that makes things hard on the economics front.
Factor it into the risk assessment, insurance premiums, maybe gatekeep various roles... but going too far beyond 18 is going to be a hard sell.


----------



## BeniBel (Dec 2, 2020)

FAST6191 said:


> That gets hard, and potentially expensive for society.
> 
> I mean I have seen the science, seen the stats on car crashes ( https://aaafoundation.org/rates-mot...-relation-driver-age-united-states-2014-2015/ ), seen how the military (who want everybody they can and otherwise have no qualms about sending hundreds to their death and will waste millions given half a chance) will not allow you in some of the fun roles until you are 25, have seen the stats on learning, on any number of major life decisions vs outcomes ( https://ifstudies.org/blog/want-to-avoid-divorce-wait-to-get-married-but-not-too-long/ ), and on and on and on.
> At the same time having disaffected and bored youth doing not so much until they are 25, even more so if age at first birth is rocketing up... that makes things hard on the economics front.
> Factor it into the risk assessment, insurance premiums, maybe gatekeep various roles... but going too far beyond 18 is going to be a hard sell.



Sadly, how life should be often isn't how it can be. Pulling up the adult age to 25, while for good reasons, isn't possible in our society as it is today. Even more guidance or possibilities for second chances, are very slim.

While we cannot count on the age of adulthood being raised, we do should do everything to prevent lowering that age for important decisions. I know there were talks in some states if the US, to lower the voting age to 16, even that would spell disaster for me. But that's a discusion for another time.

All I can advice teens who deal with congruence, is to not make drastic decisions. Talk to a professional, even multiple of you don't connect right away, and get to the root of what is making you feel the way you do.


----------



## AmandaRose (Dec 2, 2020)

Oh I should have pointed something out in my first post about how the title of this thread is wrong. 

The UK high-courts did NOT rule under 16 can't take puberty blockers they ruled that children MUST understand 'the immediate and long-term consequences of the treatment' to be able to consent to the use of puberty blockers

Also this is not a UK wide ruling it only effects the NHS in England.


----------



## Doran754 (Dec 2, 2020)

AmandaRose said:


> Oh I should have pointed something out in my first post about how the title of this thread is wrong.
> 
> The UK high-courts did NOT rule under 16 can't take puberty blockers they ruled that children MUST understand 'the immediate and long-term consequences of the treatment' to be able to consent to the use of puberty blockers
> 
> ...



They ruled they can't give informed consent, which is the same thing as far as im aware.


----------



## AmandaRose (Dec 2, 2020)

shamzie said:


> They ruled they can't give informed consent, which is the same thing as far as im aware.


They ruled children must fully understand the dangers and show to a judge that they understand. The court did not rule puberty blockers could not be given to children under sixteen as your title claims

The High Court has now ruled that children must UNDERSTAND 'the immediate and long-term consequences of the treatment' to be ABLE to consent to the use of puberty blockers.

This means doctors may now seek approval or support from the court before prescribing puberty blocking drugs to children, to try and avoid liability


Anyhoo the title of the thread has been changed now


----------



## omgcat (Dec 2, 2020)

can someone post a link to the "long term damage" puberty blockers cause?


----------



## SG854 (Dec 2, 2020)

AmandaRose said:


> You really should research the damage verbal abuse can do to someone's mental wellbeing if you believe hate speech should not be legal.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I didn't say de-transition. I said desist. The two word differences makes a big difference in the type of data you look at.



There's also Rapid-Onset Gender Dysphoria to be cautious about

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0202330


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 3, 2020)

omgcat said:


> can someone post a link to the "long term damage" puberty blockers cause?


You will have three main approaches here to look at from where I sit

There are various conditions (a few genetic conditions), and injury (cancer, trauma...), that see puberty delayed, effects lessened (lower than might be desirable levels of sex hormones have all sorts of effects) or stopped. In many ways such things will mimic these conditions. Male and female then differing in this but height, weight, muscle growth, hair growth, delayed onset and/or growth of secondary sexual characteristics.
https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/504670
https://www.yourhormones.info/endocrine-conditions/delayed-puberty/ (page from the Society for Endocrinology, long term group concerned with such things as far as I can see. Endocrinology arguably being the main medics concerned with hormones).
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/androgen-insensitivity-syndrome/treatment/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8107655/

Long term effects of blocking are less well studied https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/treatment/

2 or possibly 1a) in this is also any effects caused in and of themselves (few things are perfect here) but this I know less about.

Similarly if given unnecessarily (the false positive thing from earlier) you risk denying someone in many ways the means to grow up unhindered. Imprisonment and isolation being more extreme but heading down the same path in terms of effects, though equally a lack of muscle mass and bone density, possibly mental drives as well, would then change sports* and interactions with peers. Reversal is an odd field here and looking at the studies above most of those aim to replicate rather than catch any that fell through the cracks and "fix" things later in life. I can't however imagine that you get to do it all at once and knock out puberty in 1 year (to say nothing also of bone, muscle and more development continuing to happen for some years afterwards) which then lands you well into your 20s (and thus even more of life) before you might get back to a point your peers hit many years earlier.

*as it stands those born at the start of the school year are overwhelmingly more represented in sports by dint of having basically a year's growth over those born at the end of the school year. Now multiply that by 3-5 if you stop things from happening at say 13 and roll it on until age of majority and yeah.

If you go one further and actually go for the "opposite" hormones then you get further fun things but that is less under discussion here. Depending upon how you block things you may see increased presence of such things in your subject (both males and females do produce the opposite hormone, but in rather lower quantities, if you do a simpler testosterone blocker then rather than being offset by it you risk the minimal amounts of naturally produced oestrogen still having far greater effects than it would otherwise).

This is of course all wanting to be balanced with outcomes during and after for those that do care to do the whole transition bit. Not having to slice up cheek bones, breast tissue, throat (got that adam's apple after all, either getting rid of or giving), potentially tower above your now same sex companions, deal with hair removal (or possibly hair loss) to the same degree...


Oh and further to the numbers thing earlier. See the conditions under which diclofenac was pulled and seriously more regulated. That was a few negative (serious but so is this) results in 1000. 0.7% is well within that range.


----------



## AmandaRose (Dec 3, 2020)

SG854 said:


> I didn't say de-transition. I said desist. The two word differences makes a big difference in the type of data you look at.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You really shouldn't read stuff from genderhqorg a website set up by the right wing of the lgbt community that hate trans people and post constant made up claims and stats. Can you provide any other website not linked to that website that is also claiming most desist once they get older and that many turn out to be gay instead. Thank you


----------



## Viri (Dec 3, 2020)

shamzie said:


> Yesterday the UK high court decided under 16's can't give informed consent about puberty blockers


Good.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 3, 2020)

About 60-90%


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23702447

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18194003

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19586166

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23449293_Psychosexual_Outcome_of_Gender-Dysphoric_Children

http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/3614045

http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1987-97006-000

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01542316

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6693867

http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1979-33886-001

http://www.comppsychjournal.com/article/0010-440X(78)90019-6/references

https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/abs/10.1176/ajp.128.10.1283


----------



## AmandaRose (Dec 3, 2020)

SG854 said:


> About 60-90%
> 
> 
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23702447
> ...


Oh loads of links from pub med lol a site that consciously or unwittingly acts as a facilitator of predatory or unscrupulous publishing.

https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/09/07/confusion-journals-pubmed-now/

Any links from websites that are actually known for posting factual information?


----------



## KingVamp (Dec 3, 2020)

I'm not sure about giving kids body altering things either, but then again, I'm not an expert. As for the ruling, seems like a fair middle ground.



DBlaze said:


> Personally i'm against anything that implies needing to take medication of any sort to force or block something that is supposed to be natural, unless you're curing a disease.
> Take that as you like.


People are already doing this on some level, enhancing and changing themselves. Just wait until bigger changes can happen and become mainstream in the future. 

So, for example, you wouldn't take medications that can enhance your memory beyond what you have now?


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 3, 2020)

Can't say that I disagree with the ruling - children cannot give informed consent in any respect, least of all life-altering medical procedures. Puberty blockers are not a "pause button", they affect a child's development and may cause abnormalities in both bone density and fertility - those are not side effects you can properly gauge at a young age. In all factuality, I don't think even the parents should have the authority to consent on their child's behalf. Gender identity is pretty fluid at that stage of development and not set in stone, gender non-conformity is not unusual in adolescents still discovering who they are. Children should be shielded from self-destructive behaviour - we don't let them drink, we don't let them smoke, we probably shouldn't let them take medicine that may potentially cripple their bodies for life. Once they're adults, they can choose any therapy they want and make an informed choice regarding their health. Until then the focus should be put on other forms of therapy.



FAST6191 said:


> Maybe.
> The trouble is it is almost completely arbitrary, unknowable beforehand, changing with time (even more so if people decide to invent workarounds, and they will) and varies between people from none other than wasted time to simple everyday word renders them in particular rocking in the corner (or maybe violent outburst).
> 
> To that end it is going to be incredibly hard to enforce, manage and predict, even if I did not go with the idea that free speech is not a better ideal to hold to than hoping someone's feelings did not get hurt.


I have always been on the "free speech absolutist" side of the argument. In a public forum all speech is free speech - once you designate a category for speech that is prohibited, you're only one step away from picking and choosing who's heading to the gulag for saying, not doing, a no-no thing. In the same fashion, people are as free to speak as others are free not to listen - it seems more practical to me to just walk away than to clutch pearls and aim at limiting someone's freedom of expression, however hateful or stupid that expression might be. We're making concessions for speech that may cause "immediate illegal action" (calls to violence) and defamation/libel already, as well as policing harassment, which seems like a happy middle ground to me. The rights of the many to speak their mind supercede the rights of the few who don't want their feelings hurt. They can choose to control what can and cannot be said in a private setting, on their home turf - the government should not have that kind of power, it has no "turf", it is subservient to its citizens. The public square belongs to everybody, and that means that sometimes you might see or hear things you don't like - that's real sad, but it's priced into the freedom package.


----------



## DBlaze (Dec 3, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> I'm not sure about giving kids body altering things either, but then again, I'm not an expert. As for the ruling, seems like a fair middle ground.
> 
> 
> People are already doing this on some level, enhancing and changing themselves. Just wait until bigger changes can happen and become mainstream in the future.
> ...


Personally, no I wouldn't unless it helps with memory issues, other than that my memory is fine and there are things i'd rather not remember, how would that work with that?
Don't get me wrong, I understand why people would want to do certain things, I just don't necessarily agree with the methods. 
There's also a difference, in my opinion, between blocking a child's puberty and enhancing your memory. Instead of blocking puberty, I think the underlying "issues" need to be addressed, and that would be accepting who you are, and no i'm not saying that's always easy or that other people are going to accept your choices.
At the end of the day there's always going to be people around who will be assholes.


----------



## KingVamp (Dec 3, 2020)

DBlaze said:


> Personally, no I wouldn't unless it helps with memory issues, other than that my memory is fine and there are things i'd rather not remember, how would that work with that?


I mean, this is all hypothetically, but maybe something in the future can strengthen new memories, only when you take it and not all the time.



DBlaze said:


> There's also a difference, in my opinion, between blocking a child's puberty and enhancing your memory.


I was talking generally, not just children. Unless you meant you are OK with adults taking medicine that changes them beyond just illnesses, just not children doing so. 



DBlaze said:


> Instead of blocking puberty, I think the underlying "issues" need to be addressed, and that would be accepting who you are, and no i'm not saying that's always easy or that other people are going to accept your choices. At the end of the day there's always going to be people around who will be assholes.


Well, to some people, blocking puberty or any other changes to their body, is accepting who they are.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 3, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> I mean, this is all hypothetically, but maybe something in the future can strengthen new memories, only when you take it and not all the time.
> 
> I was talking generally, not just children. Unless you meant you are OK with adults taking medicine that changes them beyond just illnesses, just not children doing so.
> 
> Well, to some people, blocking puberty or any other changes to their body, is accepting who they are.


The problem with that line of thinking is that a gross majority of adolescents simply resolve their gender identity issues throughout puberty - around 60-80%. They can't consciously accept who they are because they don't know that yet - they haven't gone through puberty.


> The majority of children diagnosed with gender dysphoria cease to desire to be the other sex by puberty, with most growing up to identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, with or without therapeutic intervention. Prospective studies indicate that this is the case for 60 to 80% of those who have entered adolescence; puberty alleviates their gender dysphoria.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_dysphoria_in_children


If you prevent them from going through this process, you are in fact preventing them from finding out who they are or how their sexuality is oriented in a definitive fashion. The hormonal changes a person undergoes during puberty are important in shaping an individual not just physically, but also mentally. This is a textbook catch-22 where you have to weigh the pros and cons of two difficult resolutions - statistically you have better odds at reaching a desirable outcome by allowing things to play out and, should the case demand it, correct the matter later. You have to think of a solution that is beneficial to the majority of cases and provide treatment to the edge ones, not the other way around. If you treat a person with puberty blockers which may impact their development and their gender disphoria does not persist, the entire treatment was unnecessary and potentially harmful.


----------



## DBlaze (Dec 3, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> I mean, this is all hypothetically, but maybe something in the future can strengthen new memories, only when you take it and not all the time.
> 
> 
> I was talking generally, not just children. Unless you meant you are OK with adults taking medicine that changes them beyond just illnesses, just not children doing so.
> ...


The thing is it comes with an entire new set of problems, if someone doesn't go through puberty because they don't like what it does, at what point can you call someone an adult? Or is being adult also a social construct at that point?
Should we start accepting that people can also choose to remain "children" at any given point in their life? There already was this dutch "famous" guy who went to court over the fact that he wanted to have his age changed to the age he feels he is like, because he felt like he was being discriminated over his age, i'm not entirely sure on what part but still.
But I digress, I just in generally am not in favour of needing to depend on medication/drugs, unless it really is for your health, it's a really weird area to discuss it because I know that there are people who can't accept themselves without it, but medications most of the times come with undesired side effects as well.
Just to be clear, I have nothing against the entire LGBT, whatever letters there are now because I can't keep track, community thing, everyone should be happy with who they are one way or another, i'd rather just not have people depend on certain things to achieve it, is all.

Other small, albeit unrelated, example is that I have had sleeping problem for many years now, and I could get my hands on pills for that, but I don't want to rely on that and that's obviously my choice and i'm still doing just fine.

Another would be cosmetic surgery, there are cases where it's necessary to live a "normal" live and that's absolutely great!
But I definitely do not agree on people who strive to become living barbie and ken dolls and am of the opinion that they should be strongly advised to not do such a thing because in the long run it will most likely cause complications one way or another. It's in the end their own choice but I think it should be discouraged.
But these are also endless discussion because one could argue that it's because of what "society" wants us to be.

So no, i'm generally not much in favour of, adult or child, using medication or procedures to enhance or alter yourself, it's a very slippery slope that would need to be threaded very carefully in my opinion. But people in the end can do whatever they want.


----------



## AmandaRose (Dec 3, 2020)

@FAST6191 @Foxi4

Free speech absolutism only serves to penalise the most vulnerable in society and legitimises views which actively contribute to their dehumanisation and denigration. By exploiting one’s right to free speech to perpetuate anti-trans rhetoric, you exclude trans people from the conversation – this is not the definition of freedom for all. 

Contrary to what crusaders for ‘free speech’ push for, websites have a duty of care to protect their most vulnerable members from hate speech and ideas which deny their humanity


Many would suggest that instead of ‘shutting down debate’, we must engage with ideas we do not like or that offend us. But what is there to debate about the following statement that I have seen posted on the site a few times “women do not have penises”? What intelligent or insightful ideas can be brought to the table in a display of such free speech and academic peacocking when we swing back and forth between denying the reality of thousands of trans women around the world and accepting it? It is neither a productive nor a particularly intelligent stance to take that one group’s experience of gender is invalid just because of their genitalia. 

This is not an issue of one man’s right to free speech being compromised because, fundamentally, it has not been compromised 

It is an issue of allowing transgender people to exist without being exposed to trans-exclusionary rhetoric. We are not obliged to engage with ideas that are outright toxic to us and to others. 

Those who dress this up as an issue of free speech are simply crying censorship to disguise their own bigotry and making a mockery of the fact that, in 2020, people around the globe are still being imprisoned and killed for free expression. Instead of using the Western ‘regressive left’ as a scapegoat, perhaps we should be channelling our passion for freedom of speech into campaigning against regimes around the world where free and critical speech is routinely quashed – because here in the UK, and indeed the USA it is not.


----------



## eyeliner (Dec 3, 2020)

It's a reasonable decision.
Let a person become fully aware before making a life changing factor.

If this was to pass, then all adulthood and legal age of consent would go out the window and we would see newborns being promised to wedlock, getting pregnant at 12.


----------



## jimbo13 (Dec 3, 2020)

AmandaRose said:


> @FAST6191 @Foxi4
> 
> Free speech absolutism only serves to penalise the most vulnerable in society and legitimises views which actively contribute to their dehumanisation and denigration. By exploiting one’s right to free speech to perpetuate anti-trans rhetoric, you exclude trans people from the conversation – this is not the definition of freedom for all.



No one is excluding you by expressing themselves, if you choose to exclude yourself because you dislike some ones views that is your choice.  It is not dehumanization to refuse to adopt your shaky dogma, rhetoric, newspeak or your redefining of biology.




> Contrary to what crusaders for ‘free speech’ push for, websites have a duty of care to protect their most vulnerable members from hate speech and ideas which deny their humanity



You are not anymore vulnerable than anyone else on a website, you are making yourself a victim.



> Many would suggest that instead of ‘shutting down debate’, we must engage with ideas we do not like or that offend us.



No one is making you engage in anything, if you choose to engage in public discourse you may encounter ideas you do not like.  Your positions are continually offensive to large swaths of the public, mostly your contempt of western civilization's norms, religion and opposition to freedom of expression.  However you will not find me calling for your censorship.  [/quote]




> But what is there to debate about the following statement that I have seen posted on the site a few times “women do not have penises”? What intelligent or insightful ideas can be brought to the table in a display of such free speech and academic peacocking when we swing back and forth between denying the reality of thousands of trans women around the world and accepting it? It is neither a productive nor a particularly intelligent stance to take that one group’s experience of gender is invalid just because of their genitalia.



Women do not have penis's, a Penis is a biological feature of a male in a dimorphic species.  Women also do not have a Y chromosome, men do not have uterus's your feelings and ideology do not dictate biology or how others choose to interpret it or feel about it.  Other peoples beliefs, values, identity and interpretations are just as valid as yours.




> It is an issue of allowing transgender people to exist without being exposed to trans-exclusionary rhetoric. We are not obliged to engage with ideas that are outright toxic to us and to others.



Welcome to earth, we all hear rhetoric, ideas, speech we find toxic on a daily basis frequently, your not a victim and need to grow the fuck up and stop whining.

No one dislikes you because of how you choose too dress or live like, people dislike you because you whine endlessly, make yourself a victim and continually elevate your importance, ideas and values over others.


----------



## AmandaRose (Dec 3, 2020)

the trans community still faces considerable stigma due to more than a  century of being characterized as mentally ill, socially deviant and sexually predatory. While these intolerant views have faded in recent years for lesbians and gay men, trans people are often still ridiculed by a society that does not understand us. This stigma plays out in a variety of contexts – from lawmakers who leverage anti-trans stigma to score cheap political points; to family, friends or coworkers who reject trans people upon learning about our trans identities; and to people who harass, bully and commit serious violence against trans people. This includes stigma that prevents them from accessing necessary services for their survival and well-being. Only 30% of women’s shelters are willing to house trans women. While recent legal progress has been made, 27% of trans people have been fired, not hired or denied a promotion due to their trans identity. Too often, harassment has led trans people to avoid exercising their most basic rights to vote. HRC Foundation’s research shows that 49% of trans adults, and 55% of trans adults of colour said they were unable to vote in at least one election in their life because of fear of or experiencing discrimination at the polls.Violence Against Trans People– Trans people experience violence at rates far greater than the average person. Over a majority (54%) of trans people have experienced some form of intimate partner violence, 47% have been sexually assaulted in their lifetime and nearly one in ten were physically assaulted in between 2014 and 2015. This type of violence can be fatal. At least 27 trans and gender non-conforming people have been violently killed in 2020 thus far, the same number of fatalities observed in 2019. 

Now tell me we are not vulnerable.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Dec 3, 2020)

Seliph said:


> Me and every other trans person I have spoken to has said they would do anything to get puberty blockers as soon as possible if they had the ability to when they were younger.


Depends how you define "trans people". Transsexuals who actually have male and female body parts are different from people who want to be somebody they are not. That´s why "trans gender" was invented (to muddy the waters).
Puberty can be traumatic for children in general. Michael Jackson could be defined as "trans race" but only Obama and other mix-raced people are actually "trans race". Michael Jackson just didn´t feel good in his skin for whatever reason (he was an attractive black guy).


----------



## jimbo13 (Dec 3, 2020)

AmandaRose said:


> Now tell me we are not vulnerable.



You are not anymore vulnerable than anyone else on a *website, *engaging in discourse*. Y*ou are making yourself a victim.   The only
reason  anyone is even aware of your status is because you promote it for victim currency and constant lobbying for special treatment and how you think your feelings, speech & opinions are more valid than others and entitled to special protections.

They aren't.

Everyone group and individual  has been victimized, discriminated against targeted at sometime for some reason and no matter what your identity is there are people who are going to dislike you for it and not want to be around you.

Just because you atypical is not a license to continually bitch & whine about how you should be shielded and immunized from the same shit everyone else has to deal with.

Just because issues of your identity make your pile of shit smell different doesn't make it any bigger or smaller than everyone else's pile.

Your going to find more people who exclude you due to your expectations they genuflect to your identity issues than what section you buy your clothes in.


----------



## Seliph (Dec 3, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Depends how you define "trans people". Transsexuals who actually have male and female body parts are different from people who want to be somebody they are not. That´s why "trans gender" was invented (to muddy the waters).
> Puberty can be traumatic for children in general. Michael Jackson could be defined as "trans race" but only Obama and other mix-raced people are actually "trans race". Michael Jackson just didn´t feel good in his skin for whatever reason (he was an attractive black guy).


By Trans people, I mean both Transgender and Transexual people, of course.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Dec 3, 2020)

But they are not the same thing. It makes as much sense as calling people who want to be a different race and people who are, simply "trans race".


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 3, 2020)

AmandaRose said:


> @FAST6191 @Foxi4
> 
> Free speech absolutism only serves to penalise the most vulnerable in society and legitimises views which actively contribute to their dehumanisation and denigration. By exploiting one’s right to free speech to perpetuate anti-trans rhetoric, you exclude trans people from the conversation – this is not the definition of freedom for all.
> 
> ...



I don't know if I rank as an absolutist. Fire in a crowded theatre, "get that guy" in a crowd, intellectual property as a general concept (not so keen on many implementations but as a general principle), slander and libel all seem like things I would be up for.

But anyway.
I define your opposition to free speech as all those words you used, exclusionary, offensive, damaging to my mental health (if it does not exist I might say the wrong word and then my wife would leave me, I would get fired, I will end up under a bridge... best I not say anything and live in fear that not only I might transgress but a friend, employer, person I watch online or family member might, and indeed might have said something in the past that is now deemed offensive even if it was not back then).
Indeed I would go one further and say it is not arbitrary (not that it would matter if it was) and that being able to tell those in power, and those in general, my ideas on the world and more besides has led to more advancement, progress if prefer the term, and has been part of the tradition of freedom longer than.

So there are some arseholes in the world. If you are going to make an omelette you get to break a few eggs.
Or more generally "right to not be offended" is not one that is in any way workable from where I sit.

Say we reach the vaunted day in which 500 people are all that is left that hold the view that transexuals are in fact [insert whatever foul view you want to claim]. Unquestionably a minority in the population. Do they suddenly gain the right to express their views? If that is population at large what about local gathering?

Go another if you want. Transexuals in sports. What do? Some tell me that the mere idea that not considering them as the sex they want to be for all intents and purposes is utterly offensive. Others would say there are actually fairness and safety concerns. Others, perhaps members of the previous position, would ponder something with blood levels. Others would say sports is a genetic freak show at competitive level anyway so meh suck it up. That seems like grounds for a debate there. If it is shut down because of the first mob that say anything but utter acceptance is bigotry plain and simple (by definition anything else would be exclusionary) then has that advanced the state of the world?
Some tell me that not wanting to sleep with someone of the trans persuasion is itself bigotry, as opposed to a preference. Is that not a position that could be challenged or do we have to operate under the assumption that merely challenging that is offensive?

"A drug that makes people not care about their brain not matching with their chromosomes is a good thing to have"
Note this is not saying it should be mandatory (and will also sidestep the "what if they have been sectioned?" debate for this one too), just that if it existed with tolerable side effects (wouldn't exactly bin it for the occasional mild case of dry mouth) it would be a nice thing to have and should one show promise then maybe some research is in order. Some consider the notion that such things could exist as terribly upsetting ("so I take this pill and it goes away" not exactly being a novel notion in such circles). I don't know that I have seen it for the whole trans thing actually but I have actually seen it for gays, autism and disabilities so it seems a logical follow on.

This may also be derailing the original discussion. We can continue here, and quite happy to have another thread.


----------



## Seliph (Dec 3, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> But they are not the same thing. It makes as much sense as calling people who want to be a different race and people who are, simply "trans race".


I never claimed transgender and transexual are the same thing, but funnily enough, they both fall under the label "trans".


----------



## AmandaRose (Dec 3, 2020)

I will agree with one thing @FAST6191 let's get this thread back on track and we will no doubt do battle once more elsewhere.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 3, 2020)

AmandaRose said:


> @FAST6191 @Foxi4
> 
> Free speech absolutism only serves to penalise the most vulnerable in society and legitimises views which actively contribute to their dehumanisation and denigration. By exploiting one’s right to free speech to perpetuate anti-trans rhetoric, you exclude trans people from the conversation – this is not the definition of freedom for all.
> 
> ...


It serves literally everyone by allowing anyone to say or otherwise express literally anything. Penalising people for thought crimes is not acceptable in a civilised society - perhaps it's not the words that are the problem, but the thickness of one's skin. You are correct - you are not obligated to engage with ideas that you find toxic. You can do that by not engaging with them, that task doesn't require curbing anyone's natural right to speak whatever's on their mind. By imposing limitations on speech we become more like the regimes you purport we should unite against, not less. In fact, speech that is controversial or hateful is perhaps the kind of speech that is most worthy of protection as that's the kind of speech that breaks social norms and expands discussions past the realms they would normally operate in. Regimes have been toppled by guns, but they've always been weakened by public ridicule first - once you take away the right to speak in a controversial, offensive or otherwise obscene fashion, you take away the weapon society uses to non-violently resist oppression. There are no holy cows that require protection from verbal scrutiny. I can see your point, there are people out there who are more vulnerable than others, but certain basic freedoms that supercede their needs - free expression is one of them, and it's the primary pillar of a free society. In any case, yes, we should get back to the subject at hand - I only wanted to respond since I was hailed.


----------



## Seliph (Dec 3, 2020)

I just want to let you guys know...That I have been contacted officially...from GIDS. And they have told me that my Monday appointment for blockers...Is now cancelled. My sadness is indescribable. I struggle to barely function in real life as it is and now I'm uncertain.— 🖤 Celestia ❤️ (@CelestiaHeaven) December 3, 2020

I don't think anything has broken me as much as this has...Waiting years to get blockers and then having it be taken away from me like this has been a gut wrenching experience so far.— 🖤 Celestia ❤️ (@CelestiaHeaven) December 3, 2020

Think this might be important to leave here


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 3, 2020)

So someone in a time when any number of optional/elective procedures are being cancelled* had their optional/elective procedure, or indeed the consultation for it, cancelled for something they might well have built up in their mind as a solution.
Sucks but not sure what particular bearing it has on this discussion.

*to say nothing of this ruling presumably also forcing a hasty revisit of procedures and policies.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 3, 2020)

FAST6191 said:


> So someone in a time when any number of optional/elective procedures are being cancelled* had their optional/elective procedure, or indeed the consultation for it, cancelled for something they might well have built up in their mind as a solution.
> Sucks but not sure what particular bearing it has on this discussion.
> 
> *to say nothing of this ruling presumably also forcing a hasty revisit of procedures and policies.


Looking at singular instances as opposed to the bigger picture is an emotional appeal, not an actual argument. One can feel empathy in regards to a distraught individual and still do what's right for the gross majority of cases.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Dec 4, 2020)

Seliph said:


> I never claimed transgender and transexual are the same thing, but funnily enough, they both fall under the label "trans".


Labels are social constructs.


----------



## Seliph (Dec 4, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Labels are social constructs.


Correct


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Dec 8, 2020)

It amazes me that there are people out there who want children to have the authority to prevent their natural growth and potentially ruin their lives.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Dec 8, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> It amazes me that there are people out there who want children to have the authority to prevent their natural growth and potentially ruin their lives.


Makes sense from an evolutionary perspective: We are machines propagating our own DNA. Less competetion is good for the individual who does not choose to do this (esp. male competition).
However, the same people are usually also those who do not mind being replaced by foreign DNA.


----------



## The Catboy (Dec 9, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> It amazes me that there are people out there who want children to have the authority to prevent their natural growth and potentially ruin their lives.


Puberty blockers are reversible and far less detrimental to the wellbeing of trans youth than natural puberty is. Far less issues arise later in life if they want to go back or continue with HRT. As for my thoughts on this, this was a rash and horrible choice for the UK and extremely selfish of Keira Bell to believe their experience is the only experience that matters. I understand mistakes happen but to decide to go this far was extremely shitty of them.


----------



## Doran754 (Dec 9, 2020)

Lilith Valentine said:


> Puberty blockers are reversible and far less detrimental to the wellbeing of trans youth than natural puberty is. Far less issues arise later in life if they want to go back or continue with HRT.



Are you seriously advocating for children to take body altering chemicals. Super selfish, there's a reason under 18's can't do many things legally like drive and vote. But you're perfectly fine with throwing 12yr olds on all sorts of chemicals. Boggles my mind. A persons mindstate can grow and change from 12-18. My mum was a tomboy when she was a kid, by the time she was 19 it was very different, If she was a kid now you'd have had her on all sorts of chemicals and changed her name from Debby to Dave. Imagine the irreparable damage that can do. This lawsuit was brought because the trans person wasn't challenged, just ushered towards something that in later life they regretted. I wonder how many other young people feel the same way, who were pushed towards this without being challenged. If they'd let nature take its course the whole thing could've been avoided. Or maybe they'd be more sure, they'd be a legal adult and can then do what they want.

I really find this war on children quite disturbing. No other aspects of society would this be allowed to happen but for some reason this is found to be acceptable. There's no harm in waiting until their a legal adult. If counselling doesn't work until they're an adult then they have bigger problems obviously.


----------

