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

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

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

View attachment 236442

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

Techromancer

Well-Known Member

Do what I do. Hold tight and pretend it’s a plan

Conform comrades

Do what I do. Hold tight and pretend it’s a plan

Well-Known Member

Hail Mary

Techromancer

Do what I do. Hold tight and pretend it’s a plan

Well-Known Member

Hail Mary

Do what I do. Hold tight and pretend it’s a plan

Haaah-hahahaha!

Endless Trash

I don't know what i'm doing.

Haaah-hahahaha!

Endless Trash

I don't know what i'm doing.

Do what I do. Hold tight and pretend it’s a plan

Has an itch needing to be scratched.

Similar threads

Popular threads in this forum