• inb4_FoundTheVegan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    As always: further research is needed.

    You sound well meaning but uniformed. Sure more research is always good but this is already a very well understood field and I have ample sources to prove it.

    I can understand that people are hesitant to allow gender affirming care, because they fear they might do more harm than good.

    First off, there is absolutely zero surgeries being performed on minors. This is not happening. What is happening is puberty blockers and hormone replacement therapy, both of which are non-permanent. And once someone becomes an adult and begins more permanent affirming care, the rate of people experiencing regret is laughably low.

    all those trans issues must seem like a new trend, I certainly didn’t hear much about them 10 years ago

    I think you need to understand your personal limitations. Because it’s really not new, I mean I can point to ancient history with people like Empress Elagabalus, but if we just want to talk about modern medical transition there is Dr. Alan Hart in 1917 or Christine Jorgensen in 1952 a WW2 vet that made national headlines. The diagonosis of gender dysphoria has existed in the DSM since 1980. Trans identity or medical transitions is very far from a new concept.

    Unless there’s something like a proper scientific guideline,

    Every major field of related medicine abundantly agrees that this is safe and necessary treatment. Such as American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Association and American Psychiatric Association.

    There are already numerous safeguards, such as to receive any gender affirming care (which is only ever provided to adults) requires multiple years on reversible Hormones and then letters of support form two separate psychiatrists.

    Weather or not a doctor is allowed to prescribe proven treatments to a patient suffering from a preventable, manageable and curable condition is NOT something that a judge needs to determine. It exclusively is the purview of a patient and a doctor, not the law.

    As a trans person myself, I need you to understand that reticence by the cis population is dangerous for the trans population. So while I can understand why it sounds extreme to you, that should only be a reason for you personally not to seek this sort of care. Not a reason for you to support roadblocks against the advice from medical professionals.

    • nonailsleft@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      Thanks for all the info. Can you explain how hormone treatment for children would be non-permanent? I’d think that adding or substracting hormones, like say growth hormones, would always leave traces throughout ones further life

      • dondelelcaro@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        Because they temporarily block the onset of puberty, not permanently block it. Any effects are mostly reversible if the individual desires. What isn’t reversible are the all too frequent side effects of untreated dysphoria: death.

        • nonailsleft@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          3 days ago

          Thanks. But I see another disclaimer with ‘mostly reversible’… For children I think there would be a lot less opposition if it was only requested for fully reversible treatments.

      • bitchkat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        They give youth hormone blockers to delay puberty. This gives them time to figure out if transitioning is really right for them without have their body modified by puberty. You can stay on puberty blockers until your mid 20’s pretty easily.

    • leisesprecher@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      3 days ago

      Read your sources again.

      The first study is about adults, not children. The pediatrics talk about banning care all together. Both address exactly not my point.

      First off, there is absolutely zero surgeries being performed on minors. This is not happening. What is happening is puberty blockers and hormone replacement therapy, both of which are non-permanent

      I never implied surgery. And “non-permanent” is a euphemism. Blocking puberty for years can lead to permanent problems - like infertility.

      Actually, your entire comment kind of proves my point: there isn’t research about how kids think and care ten years later.

      As a trans person myself, I need you to understand that reticence by the cis population is dangerous for the trans population

      And you need to understand, that finding out, whether a kid is part of that population is exactly the hard part.

      • myfavouritename@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 days ago

        That went from “just asking questions” to “I’m going to ignore all of the science that you’ve presented me with and be an asshole” really quick.

        I’m grateful to you for making it so obvious that it is okay to block you and never see another thing you post. Thank you.

      • inb4_FoundTheVegan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        And you need to understand, that finding out, whether a kid is part of that population is exactly the hard part.

        I don’t think you fully appreciate the stigma and roadblocks associated with being trans. This isn’t something people do on a whim and the data supports it. They are part of my community when they say they are.

        The children that have self advocated enough to persistently ask enough for medical transition deserve the opportunity to do so. Like truly, think of the position you would be putting them in.

        individuals were 60% less likely to experience depression (aOR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.17-0.95) and 73% less likely to experience suicidality (aOR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.11-0.65) when compared to youths who did not received gender-affirming interventions.

        Blocking anyone from getting the care they say they need is reckless. It’s not yours or the laws place to put up roadblocks to deny them that opportunity. It’s not protecting kids but quite the opposite, it simply raises the risk of self harm.

        there isn’t research about how kids think and care ten years later.

        The metric of 10 years is a high bar, but the data does exist.

        • spujb@lemmy.cafe
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 days ago

          these “well intentioned but just asking questions” commenters just make me sad :( there are so. many. dangerous medical procedures with higher regret rates out there that no one logs on to the internet to yap about government regulation. why? because medical boards are fucking smart and operating under the railguards of malpractice law. believe it or not, the doctors also care about the wellbeing of your child.

          i mean gender affirming care has LESS REGRET RATES THAN FUCKING CANCER SURGERY! so where are the concerned citizens asking for government intervention for those poor folks? instead we have picked literally the most vulnerabe, hated, and young population to pit in one of the centermost political battlegrounds for concern and virtue signaling clout, chirping about a group whose number one threat of death is suicide.

          no hate to either of you. i’m just sad and upset and grateful to you for helping 1 person get educated.