Gender dysphoria; what age?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op here. Definitely not my kid. A friend...and I am extremely skeptical. Hence this post to gather some anecdata.

Seems like 3 is too young for the concept of gender to be understood. Hence emphatically expressing one is one or the other gender definitively seems outlandish this young. I can see and understand other stories about a kid feeling uncomfortable in their body, etc

It's remarkable how few of the commenters here are parents who have direct experience relevant to your question. I think you're at risk of taking away the wrong takeaway here.

Parents with direct experience provide valuable perspectives but are also very invested in the decisions they made.

And yet these are the perspectives the OP asked for.

Some of you just can't be quiet even when that is specifically requested. It's notable and seems ideological.

One of the notable aspects of gender ideology and specifically treatment for a medical condition such as gender dysphoria is that personal experience elevated far above scientific evidence (or lack thereof). It’s hard to think of other medical conditions where hard looks at available evidence are so universally discouraged. OP did indeed ask about direct experience, but in nearly any other medical context, a sober discourse about the actual evidence would typically be welcome, not frantically discouraged.

The ironic thing here is that the you say this but then the discouragement is going the opposite way of the way you claim. You (or someone else here) is claiming that people discussing their first hand experience should be discouraged and only those that don't have first hand experience should be discussing other people's gender dysphoria.

No one is saying that. This is a straw man. PP are saying yes, personal experience reports are important, but not to the exclusion of science and medical evidence. It's not either/or; it's both/and.

Exactly. Nobody is discouraging sharing direct experiences. What is being added is a discussion of the medical evidence or lack thereof. Any reasonable discussion should be both/and, but with this particular medical condition, advocates for medicalized treatments often do not want any rigorous discussion of medical evidence and prefer to direct the conversation only to personal experience.

So in your view, when should a transgender person be allowed to access cross sex hormones therapy?

At the age of majority. If you can't get a tattoo or smoke a cigarette or have sex with an adult, surely you shouldn't be getting a double mastectomy or flooding your body with experimental hormones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op here. Definitely not my kid. A friend...and I am extremely skeptical. Hence this post to gather some anecdata.

Seems like 3 is too young for the concept of gender to be understood. Hence emphatically expressing one is one or the other gender definitively seems outlandish this young. I can see and understand other stories about a kid feeling uncomfortable in their body, etc

It's remarkable how few of the commenters here are parents who have direct experience relevant to your question. I think you're at risk of taking away the wrong takeaway here.

Parents with direct experience provide valuable perspectives but are also very invested in the decisions they made.

And yet these are the perspectives the OP asked for.

Some of you just can't be quiet even when that is specifically requested. It's notable and seems ideological.

One of the notable aspects of gender ideology and specifically treatment for a medical condition such as gender dysphoria is that personal experience elevated far above scientific evidence (or lack thereof). It’s hard to think of other medical conditions where hard looks at available evidence are so universally discouraged. OP did indeed ask about direct experience, but in nearly any other medical context, a sober discourse about the actual evidence would typically be welcome, not frantically discouraged.

The ironic thing here is that the you say this but then the discouragement is going the opposite way of the way you claim. You (or someone else here) is claiming that people discussing their first hand experience should be discouraged and only those that don't have first hand experience should be discussing other people's gender dysphoria.

I think it's at least worth acknowledging, that once you've taken the position of pushing the medical model of care onto children in spite of its experimental nature, it's unlikely you'll ever go 'woops my bad'. Otherwise you're admitting you may have ruined children's lives, whether your own or otherwise.

If someone has had their life ruined because they detransition then do people that go through their full natal puberty then transition as an adult have their lives ruined also?

In what sense? Their lives are ruined because they went through puberty instead of not? If say, a trans woman was deprived hormone treatment until after puberty and their sole happiness in life was derived from how well they 'pass' as a conventionally beautiful woman, then yes their life was ruined from that perspective. If they ever cared about reproduction, experiencing orgasm, or avoiding some of the other side effects of hormone treatments the answer isn't as clear to me.

So you're saying that if someone is infertile because of hormone treatment, that their life has been ruined? It's the term "life ruined" that is throwing me off here because you seem to be placing the entire value of one's life on transitioning and realizing they're wrong. I was under the impression you meant because they now have to detransition but now it seems like you're saying that someone that's infertile has had their life ruined. Or were you just being dramatic with that terminology? Their life has no value now that they can't reproduce???????

[Anonymous]

Well I'm just adopting the language you posed. If you take some form of voluntary action that destroys one of your bodily functions, then you have ruined that specific part of your life. That may not be an actual loss depending on the person, but these treatments aren't without costs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op here. Definitely not my kid. A friend...and I am extremely skeptical. Hence this post to gather some anecdata.

Seems like 3 is too young for the concept of gender to be understood. Hence emphatically expressing one is one or the other gender definitively seems outlandish this young. I can see and understand other stories about a kid feeling uncomfortable in their body, etc

It's remarkable how few of the commenters here are parents who have direct experience relevant to your question. I think you're at risk of taking away the wrong takeaway here.

Parents with direct experience provide valuable perspectives but are also very invested in the decisions they made.

And yet these are the perspectives the OP asked for.

Some of you just can't be quiet even when that is specifically requested. It's notable and seems ideological.

One of the notable aspects of gender ideology and specifically treatment for a medical condition such as gender dysphoria is that personal experience elevated far above scientific evidence (or lack thereof). It’s hard to think of other medical conditions where hard looks at available evidence are so universally discouraged. OP did indeed ask about direct experience, but in nearly any other medical context, a sober discourse about the actual evidence would typically be welcome, not frantically discouraged.

The ironic thing here is that the you say this but then the discouragement is going the opposite way of the way you claim. You (or someone else here) is claiming that people discussing their first hand experience should be discouraged and only those that don't have first hand experience should be discussing other people's gender dysphoria.

No one is saying that. This is a straw man. PP are saying yes, personal experience reports are important, but not to the exclusion of science and medical evidence. It's not either/or; it's both/and.

Exactly. Nobody is discouraging sharing direct experiences. What is being added is a discussion of the medical evidence or lack thereof. Any reasonable discussion should be both/and, but with this particular medical condition, advocates for medicalized treatments often do not want any rigorous discussion of medical evidence and prefer to direct the conversation only to personal experience.

So in your view, when should a transgender person be allowed to access cross sex hormones therapy?

At the age of majority. If you can't get a tattoo or smoke a cigarette or have sex with an adult, surely you shouldn't be getting a double mastectomy or flooding your body with experimental hormones.

This is 18 in most states. I find it strange that people discuss double mastectomy so often as though that's all that common under 18. It's also not exactly a double mastectomy. Top surgery is technically a little different but I wouldn't expect you to know that. I would definitely have no issues banning surgery up till 18 but I think that in the blue states you're never going to have teenagers banned from being on HRT. In fact, Maryland and DC shields doctors and patients as well as their families. It's going the opposite way

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op here. Definitely not my kid. A friend...and I am extremely skeptical. Hence this post to gather some anecdata.

Seems like 3 is too young for the concept of gender to be understood. Hence emphatically expressing one is one or the other gender definitively seems outlandish this young. I can see and understand other stories about a kid feeling uncomfortable in their body, etc

It's remarkable how few of the commenters here are parents who have direct experience relevant to your question. I think you're at risk of taking away the wrong takeaway here.

Parents with direct experience provide valuable perspectives but are also very invested in the decisions they made.

And yet these are the perspectives the OP asked for.

Some of you just can't be quiet even when that is specifically requested. It's notable and seems ideological.

One of the notable aspects of gender ideology and specifically treatment for a medical condition such as gender dysphoria is that personal experience elevated far above scientific evidence (or lack thereof). It’s hard to think of other medical conditions where hard looks at available evidence are so universally discouraged. OP did indeed ask about direct experience, but in nearly any other medical context, a sober discourse about the actual evidence would typically be welcome, not frantically discouraged.

The ironic thing here is that the you say this but then the discouragement is going the opposite way of the way you claim. You (or someone else here) is claiming that people discussing their first hand experience should be discouraged and only those that don't have first hand experience should be discussing other people's gender dysphoria.

No one is saying that. This is a straw man. PP are saying yes, personal experience reports are important, but not to the exclusion of science and medical evidence. It's not either/or; it's both/and.

Exactly. Nobody is discouraging sharing direct experiences. What is being added is a discussion of the medical evidence or lack thereof. Any reasonable discussion should be both/and, but with this particular medical condition, advocates for medicalized treatments often do not want any rigorous discussion of medical evidence and prefer to direct the conversation only to personal experience.

So in your view, when should a transgender person be allowed to access cross sex hormones therapy?

At the age of majority. If you can't get a tattoo or smoke a cigarette or have sex with an adult, surely you shouldn't be getting a double mastectomy or flooding your body with experimental hormones.

This is 18 in most states. I find it strange that people discuss double mastectomy so often as though that's all that common under 18. It's also not exactly a double mastectomy. Top surgery is technically a little different but I wouldn't expect you to know that. I would definitely have no issues banning surgery up till 18 but I think that in the blue states you're never going to have teenagers banned from being on HRT. In fact, Maryland and DC shields doctors and patients as well as their families. It's going the opposite way

No one said it's all that common or that it is not "technically a little different" from a mastectomy. You sound like a 12-year-old who goes around saying "actually..." and "technically..." and "in fact..." when grown ups are having a real conversation grounded in common sense. Go away, you've already taken up too much space.

[Anonymous]

Hey, if progressives want to sterilize themselves out of existence that's fine by me.

[Anonymous]

I'm a child therapist. I firmly believe 99% of modern trans children are due to parent pressure or family dysfunction. I believe transgenderism is a real DSM disorder but incredibly rare, and that this current trend is akin to a social contagion people will write dissertations about in 100 years.

I live and practice in an affluent liberal community and this is my experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op here. Definitely not my kid. A friend...and I am extremely skeptical. Hence this post to gather some anecdata.

Seems like 3 is too young for the concept of gender to be understood. Hence emphatically expressing one is one or the other gender definitively seems outlandish this young. I can see and understand other stories about a kid feeling uncomfortable in their body, etc

It's remarkable how few of the commenters here are parents who have direct experience relevant to your question. I think you're at risk of taking away the wrong takeaway here.

Parents with direct experience provide valuable perspectives but are also very invested in the decisions they made.

And yet these are the perspectives the OP asked for.

Some of you just can't be quiet even when that is specifically requested. It's notable and seems ideological.

One of the notable aspects of gender ideology and specifically treatment for a medical condition such as gender dysphoria is that personal experience elevated far above scientific evidence (or lack thereof). It’s hard to think of other medical conditions where hard looks at available evidence are so universally discouraged. OP did indeed ask about direct experience, but in nearly any other medical context, a sober discourse about the actual evidence would typically be welcome, not frantically discouraged.

The ironic thing here is that the you say this but then the discouragement is going the opposite way of the way you claim. You (or someone else here) is claiming that people discussing their first hand experience should be discouraged and only those that don't have first hand experience should be discussing other people's gender dysphoria.

No one is saying that. This is a straw man. PP are saying yes, personal experience reports are important, but not to the exclusion of science and medical evidence. It's not either/or; it's both/and.

Exactly. Nobody is discouraging sharing direct experiences. What is being added is a discussion of the medical evidence or lack thereof. Any reasonable discussion should be both/and, but with this particular medical condition, advocates for medicalized treatments often do not want any rigorous discussion of medical evidence and prefer to direct the conversation only to personal experience.

So in your view, when should a transgender person be allowed to access cross sex hormones therapy?

At the age of majority. If you can't get a tattoo or smoke a cigarette or have sex with an adult, surely you shouldn't be getting a double mastectomy or flooding your body with experimental hormones.

This is 18 in most states. I find it strange that people discuss double mastectomy so often as though that's all that common under 18. It's also not exactly a double mastectomy. Top surgery is technically a little different but I wouldn't expect you to know that. I would definitely have no issues banning surgery up till 18 but I think that in the blue states you're never going to have teenagers banned from being on HRT. In fact, Maryland and DC shields doctors and patients as well as their families. It's going the opposite way

No one said it's all that common or that it is not "technically a little different" from a mastectomy. You sound like a 12-year-old who goes around saying "actually..." and "technically..." and "in fact..." when grown ups are having a real conversation grounded in common sense. Go away, you've already taken up too much space.

When people go around saying folks lives are ruined because they detransitioned or act like they're experts of what transition care is then call top surgery a double mastectomy, that shows more about you than it does about me as does your desire to attack me for pointing out that you are using a term that is medically incorrect in a post ostensibly about research and scientific knowledge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op here. Definitely not my kid. A friend...and I am extremely skeptical. Hence this post to gather some anecdata.

Seems like 3 is too young for the concept of gender to be understood. Hence emphatically expressing one is one or the other gender definitively seems outlandish this young. I can see and understand other stories about a kid feeling uncomfortable in their body, etc

It's remarkable how few of the commenters here are parents who have direct experience relevant to your question. I think you're at risk of taking away the wrong takeaway here.

Parents with direct experience provide valuable perspectives but are also very invested in the decisions they made.

And yet these are the perspectives the OP asked for.

Some of you just can't be quiet even when that is specifically requested. It's notable and seems ideological.

One of the notable aspects of gender ideology and specifically treatment for a medical condition such as gender dysphoria is that personal experience elevated far above scientific evidence (or lack thereof). It’s hard to think of other medical conditions where hard looks at available evidence are so universally discouraged. OP did indeed ask about direct experience, but in nearly any other medical context, a sober discourse about the actual evidence would typically be welcome, not frantically discouraged.

The ironic thing here is that the you say this but then the discouragement is going the opposite way of the way you claim. You (or someone else here) is claiming that people discussing their first hand experience should be discouraged and only those that don't have first hand experience should be discussing other people's gender dysphoria.

No one is saying that. This is a straw man. PP are saying yes, personal experience reports are important, but not to the exclusion of science and medical evidence. It's not either/or; it's both/and.

Exactly. Nobody is discouraging sharing direct experiences. What is being added is a discussion of the medical evidence or lack thereof. Any reasonable discussion should be both/and, but with this particular medical condition, advocates for medicalized treatments often do not want any rigorous discussion of medical evidence and prefer to direct the conversation only to personal experience.

So in your view, when should a transgender person be allowed to access cross sex hormones therapy?

At the age of majority. If you can't get a tattoo or smoke a cigarette or have sex with an adult, surely you shouldn't be getting a double mastectomy or flooding your body with experimental hormones.

This is 18 in most states. I find it strange that people discuss double mastectomy so often as though that's all that common under 18. It's also not exactly a double mastectomy. Top surgery is technically a little different but I wouldn't expect you to know that. I would definitely have no issues banning surgery up till 18 but I think that in the blue states you're never going to have teenagers banned from being on HRT. In fact, Maryland and DC shields doctors and patients as well as their families. It's going the opposite way

No one said it's all that common or that it is not "technically a little different" from a mastectomy. You sound like a 12-year-old who goes around saying "actually..." and "technically..." and "in fact..." when grown ups are having a real conversation grounded in common sense. Go away, you've already taken up too much space.

When people go around saying folks lives are ruined because they detransitioned or act like they're experts of what transition care is then call top surgery a double mastectomy, that shows more about you than it does about me as does your desire to attack me for pointing out that you are using a term that is medically incorrect in a post ostensibly about research and scientific knowledge.

I'm attacking you for being a shrill and tedious boor, to be clear. It comes through as effortlessly in your writing as I'm sure it does in person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In the 1990s and before, most children with significant dysphoria at a young age had it resolve at puberty, though mostly they turned out same-sex attracted.

Current model in the US is to affirm when young, and stop puberty from taking place. Most of Europe, where this was common, has reversed course and no longer prescribe puberty blockers.

I was wondering what happened to all of the butch lesbians! Seriously, I've heard that that community is dwindling in size.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op here. Definitely not my kid. A friend...and I am extremely skeptical. Hence this post to gather some anecdata.

Seems like 3 is too young for the concept of gender to be understood. Hence emphatically expressing one is one or the other gender definitively seems outlandish this young. I can see and understand other stories about a kid feeling uncomfortable in their body, etc

It's remarkable how few of the commenters here are parents who have direct experience relevant to your question. I think you're at risk of taking away the wrong takeaway here.

Parents with direct experience provide valuable perspectives but are also very invested in the decisions they made.

And yet these are the perspectives the OP asked for.

Some of you just can't be quiet even when that is specifically requested. It's notable and seems ideological.

One of the notable aspects of gender ideology and specifically treatment for a medical condition such as gender dysphoria is that personal experience elevated far above scientific evidence (or lack thereof). It’s hard to think of other medical conditions where hard looks at available evidence are so universally discouraged. OP did indeed ask about direct experience, but in nearly any other medical context, a sober discourse about the actual evidence would typically be welcome, not frantically discouraged.

The ironic thing here is that the you say this but then the discouragement is going the opposite way of the way you claim. You (or someone else here) is claiming that people discussing their first hand experience should be discouraged and only those that don't have first hand experience should be discussing other people's gender dysphoria.

No one is saying that. This is a straw man. PP are saying yes, personal experience reports are important, but not to the exclusion of science and medical evidence. It's not either/or; it's both/and.

Exactly. Nobody is discouraging sharing direct experiences. What is being added is a discussion of the medical evidence or lack thereof. Any reasonable discussion should be both/and, but with this particular medical condition, advocates for medicalized treatments often do not want any rigorous discussion of medical evidence and prefer to direct the conversation only to personal experience.

So in your view, when should a transgender person be allowed to access cross sex hormones therapy?

I think that question is out of scope for this thread. In my opinion, the body of medical evidence thus far does not seem to indicate that use of medical intervention for gender dysphoria in children is effective medical treatment. The issue right now is the refusal of medical bodies to rigorously examine that evidence; in fact, the dereliction of medical bodies in the US on this particular medical issue is appalling. However, I don’t think my personal opinion matters as to what that medical treatment should be.

What I think is that medical professionals and organizations in the US need to do their jobs and make new recommendations based on a rigorous examination of medical evidence. This is happening in countries with socialized medicine where, to an extent, the profit-driven motives for recommending medicalized care are lessened. But that neutral and rigorous examination of evidence for treatment is not happening in the US, which is very unfortunate.

Nonetheless, my personal opinion as to age for medical treatment is and should be irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op here. Definitely not my kid. A friend...and I am extremely skeptical. Hence this post to gather some anecdata.

Seems like 3 is too young for the concept of gender to be understood. Hence emphatically expressing one is one or the other gender definitively seems outlandish this young. I can see and understand other stories about a kid feeling uncomfortable in their body, etc

It's remarkable how few of the commenters here are parents who have direct experience relevant to your question. I think you're at risk of taking away the wrong takeaway here.

Parents with direct experience provide valuable perspectives but are also very invested in the decisions they made.

And yet these are the perspectives the OP asked for.

Some of you just can't be quiet even when that is specifically requested. It's notable and seems ideological.

One of the notable aspects of gender ideology and specifically treatment for a medical condition such as gender dysphoria is that personal experience elevated far above scientific evidence (or lack thereof). It’s hard to think of other medical conditions where hard looks at available evidence are so universally discouraged. OP did indeed ask about direct experience, but in nearly any other medical context, a sober discourse about the actual evidence would typically be welcome, not frantically discouraged.

The ironic thing here is that the you say this but then the discouragement is going the opposite way of the way you claim. You (or someone else here) is claiming that people discussing their first hand experience should be discouraged and only those that don't have first hand experience should be discussing other people's gender dysphoria.

I think it's at least worth acknowledging, that once you've taken the position of pushing the medical model of care onto children in spite of its experimental nature, it's unlikely you'll ever go 'woops my bad'. Otherwise you're admitting you may have ruined children's lives, whether your own or otherwise.

If someone has had their life ruined because they detransition then do people that go through their full natal puberty then transition as an adult have their lives ruined also?

No.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op here. Definitely not my kid. A friend...and I am extremely skeptical. Hence this post to gather some anecdata.

Seems like 3 is too young for the concept of gender to be understood. Hence emphatically expressing one is one or the other gender definitively seems outlandish this young. I can see and understand other stories about a kid feeling uncomfortable in their body, etc

It's remarkable how few of the commenters here are parents who have direct experience relevant to your question. I think you're at risk of taking away the wrong takeaway here.

Parents with direct experience provide valuable perspectives but are also very invested in the decisions they made.

And yet these are the perspectives the OP asked for.

Some of you just can't be quiet even when that is specifically requested. It's notable and seems ideological.

One of the notable aspects of gender ideology and specifically treatment for a medical condition such as gender dysphoria is that personal experience elevated far above scientific evidence (or lack thereof). It’s hard to think of other medical conditions where hard looks at available evidence are so universally discouraged. OP did indeed ask about direct experience, but in nearly any other medical context, a sober discourse about the actual evidence would typically be welcome, not frantically discouraged.

The ironic thing here is that the you say this but then the discouragement is going the opposite way of the way you claim. You (or someone else here) is claiming that people discussing their first hand experience should be discouraged and only those that don't have first hand experience should be discussing other people's gender dysphoria.

No one is saying that. This is a straw man. PP are saying yes, personal experience reports are important, but not to the exclusion of science and medical evidence. It's not either/or; it's both/and.

Exactly. Nobody is discouraging sharing direct experiences. What is being added is a discussion of the medical evidence or lack thereof. Any reasonable discussion should be both/and, but with this particular medical condition, advocates for medicalized treatments often do not want any rigorous discussion of medical evidence and prefer to direct the conversation only to personal experience.

So in your view, when should a transgender person be allowed to access cross sex hormones therapy?

I think that question is out of scope for this thread. In my opinion, the body of medical evidence thus far does not seem to indicate that use of medical intervention for gender dysphoria in children is effective medical treatment. The issue right now is the refusal of medical bodies to rigorously examine that evidence; in fact, the dereliction of medical bodies in the US on this particular medical issue is appalling. However, I don’t think my personal opinion matters as to what that medical treatment should be.

What I think is that medical professionals and organizations in the US need to do their jobs and make new recommendations based on a rigorous examination of medical evidence. This is happening in countries with socialized medicine where, to an extent, the profit-driven motives for recommending medicalized care are lessened. But that neutral and rigorous examination of evidence for treatment is not happening in the US, which is very unfortunate.

Nonetheless, my personal opinion as to age for medical treatment is and should be irrelevant.

The US will never be the UK in terms of healthcare. The states will never act like England did. Maryland for example since we are on DCUM is going the opposite direction with shield laws. We will have people (we probably already do) traveling from red states to get their children gender affirming care here. You can push for bans in the red states but it's very unlikely it will ever happen in blue states. Even if it does, you'll have people starting hormones as soon as they are 18 and an adult and some portion of them will detransition.

Most people in the US that do not want kids to transition medically say it's only for kids but what they actually want is for no one of any age to be allowed to which is why it is in fact relevant. If someone says, wait until you're 18 then when they're 18 they say wait until you're 26 then at 26 they say I don't want you to transition still then that is HIGHLY relevant because you're lying about your intentions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op here. Definitely not my kid. A friend...and I am extremely skeptical. Hence this post to gather some anecdata.

Seems like 3 is too young for the concept of gender to be understood. Hence emphatically expressing one is one or the other gender definitively seems outlandish this young. I can see and understand other stories about a kid feeling uncomfortable in their body, etc

It's remarkable how few of the commenters here are parents who have direct experience relevant to your question. I think you're at risk of taking away the wrong takeaway here.

Parents with direct experience provide valuable perspectives but are also very invested in the decisions they made.

And yet these are the perspectives the OP asked for.

Some of you just can't be quiet even when that is specifically requested. It's notable and seems ideological.

One of the notable aspects of gender ideology and specifically treatment for a medical condition such as gender dysphoria is that personal experience elevated far above scientific evidence (or lack thereof). It’s hard to think of other medical conditions where hard looks at available evidence are so universally discouraged. OP did indeed ask about direct experience, but in nearly any other medical context, a sober discourse about the actual evidence would typically be welcome, not frantically discouraged.

The ironic thing here is that the you say this but then the discouragement is going the opposite way of the way you claim. You (or someone else here) is claiming that people discussing their first hand experience should be discouraged and only those that don't have first hand experience should be discussing other people's gender dysphoria.

I think it's at least worth acknowledging, that once you've taken the position of pushing the medical model of care onto children in spite of its experimental nature, it's unlikely you'll ever go 'woops my bad'. Otherwise you're admitting you may have ruined children's lives, whether your own or otherwise.

If someone has had their life ruined because they detransition then do people that go through their full natal puberty then transition as an adult have their lives ruined also?

No.

Exactly. And people that detransition haven't had their lives ruined either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op here. Definitely not my kid. A friend...and I am extremely skeptical. Hence this post to gather some anecdata.

Seems like 3 is too young for the concept of gender to be understood. Hence emphatically expressing one is one or the other gender definitively seems outlandish this young. I can see and understand other stories about a kid feeling uncomfortable in their body, etc

It's remarkable how few of the commenters here are parents who have direct experience relevant to your question. I think you're at risk of taking away the wrong takeaway here.

Parents with direct experience provide valuable perspectives but are also very invested in the decisions they made.

And yet these are the perspectives the OP asked for.

Some of you just can't be quiet even when that is specifically requested. It's notable and seems ideological.

One of the notable aspects of gender ideology and specifically treatment for a medical condition such as gender dysphoria is that personal experience elevated far above scientific evidence (or lack thereof). It’s hard to think of other medical conditions where hard looks at available evidence are so universally discouraged. OP did indeed ask about direct experience, but in nearly any other medical context, a sober discourse about the actual evidence would typically be welcome, not frantically discouraged.

The ironic thing here is that the you say this but then the discouragement is going the opposite way of the way you claim. You (or someone else here) is claiming that people discussing their first hand experience should be discouraged and only those that don't have first hand experience should be discussing other people's gender dysphoria.

No one is saying that. This is a straw man. PP are saying yes, personal experience reports are important, but not to the exclusion of science and medical evidence. It's not either/or; it's both/and.

Exactly. Nobody is discouraging sharing direct experiences. What is being added is a discussion of the medical evidence or lack thereof. Any reasonable discussion should be both/and, but with this particular medical condition, advocates for medicalized treatments often do not want any rigorous discussion of medical evidence and prefer to direct the conversation only to personal experience.

So in your view, when should a transgender person be allowed to access cross sex hormones therapy?

At the age of majority. If you can't get a tattoo or smoke a cigarette or have sex with an adult, surely you shouldn't be getting a double mastectomy or flooding your body with experimental hormones.

This is 18 in most states. I find it strange that people discuss double mastectomy so often as though that's all that common under 18. It's also not exactly a double mastectomy. Top surgery is technically a little different but I wouldn't expect you to know that. I would definitely have no issues banning surgery up till 18 but I think that in the blue states you're never going to have teenagers banned from being on HRT. In fact, Maryland and DC shields doctors and patients as well as their families. It's going the opposite way

My BCBS federal plan literally just lowered the age of coverage for breast removal from 18 to 16 this year. Also reduced the required length of time on hormones to 6 months prior to surgery, and just one therapist letter instead of 2.