QT/trans: What makes you want to be involved in the debate or advocating for trans rights? What would need to be achieved to make you stop?

submitted by peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS from self.GCdebatesQT

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 6 fun1 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 6 fun -  (13 children)

Incompetent judges who are not medical experts have no impact on facts

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

What facts are you referring to?

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (11 children)

That children can consent, and that the opinion of non-medical experts who are almost certainly prejudiced have no bearing on the actual reality of the situation. It’s like how a law against homosexuality doesn’t actuallY make homosexuality immoral just because someone with legal power says so.

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I guess I need to look up the details of that case, I would think the court would base its ruling on medical evidence and expert opinion but maybe that's naïve. But this doesn't seem like an issue of morality--although, I guess if it was, it seems like letting kids make these decisions would be kind of immoral, wouldn't it?

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Everything I'm reading about children and adolescents giving informed consent is all based in law, which is based on science and medical expert opinion. The only prejudice I'm seeing are from trans rights groups and advocates who say "kids who say they're trans are trans and know what's best for themselves", all based around the notion of the development and solidification gender identity early on in life. If anything, the informed consent model seems rather lax and flexible in the face of science, for instance allowing for minors to make decisions if they're married in some locations. And even at age 18, when most are legally considered adults, they haven't reached full physiological development. This is all indicative of a rather relaxed and liberal definition of when children and adolescents can provide consent. I found this breakdown analysis from the blog for the Journal of Medical Ethics interesting: https://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2020/01/16/transgender-children-limits-on-consent-to-permanent-interventions/

We talked elsewhere about the importance and power of empathy and love. And it's probably love and empathy that make us feel so bad for the suffering of these kids, kids that we see ourselves in. But maybe we can extend that love and empathy to those we see who were hurt so badly by the affirmative-care model, those who were failed by the adults who pushed them into transitioning when it wasn't appropriate. Watching and listening to the children who transitioned and then de-transitioned as adults is beyond heartbreaking, and it's so clear how they deeply they were negatively affected by this. How could we want anyone to suffer like that?

What's more, even for those of us who transitioned and it was maybe the best decision to make or the only option left, that's a last resort. It just provides for a means to live the most normal life, right? Why would we want any other child to have to live like this, to be trans? I think you can be a trans person and love yourself and have peace in who and what you are, but not wanting children to have to go through the same thing is not cruel, nor is it some kind of expression of "tough love", it's a display of real empathy and love. We should want the absolute best for our children. And it's clear from watching videos of people who've de-transitioned and speaking with them and hearing their stories, even medically transitioning for a couple years can have devastating effects that last for years and can affect them for the rest of their lives. The trans-affirmative care model causes so much more suffering to so many more kids than it prevents. We can do so much better for our kids, and they really deserve to have caregivers who would stop at nothing to do so.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 7 fun4 insightful - 6 fun5 insightful - 7 fun -  (2 children)

New developments!

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN2BI2I9

[–]Greensquidsphone 3 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah that was a few days ago, had a small party, sometimes things are good.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Parents making those decisions is certainly more appropriate than children doing so, so that seems like a step in a better direction that maybe doesn't cut off access to that kind of treatment completely, but doesn't grant that kind of decision-making to children and adolescents. Even then, it will only benefit a very small number of children and adolescents. Hopefully most parents will be prudent and most doctors will be transparent and direct.

[–]Greensquidsphone 2 insightful - 4 fun2 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 4 fun -  (4 children)

Why would we want any other child to have to live like this, to be trans?

I don't, so if we find a way to cure dysphoria without transitions, great. But we haven't, so maybe apply that same empathy in reverse for trans kids you want to gatekeep from, again, rigorously proven medical treatment.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

The empathy for those kids is naturally more intense because their plight is so relatable. Since gender dysphoria will persist into adulthood for a small number of children and adolescents, yes, some of the treatments as they exist might be most appropriate for them and might do more good than harm in both the short- and long-term. The question is, how do we determine which children will benefit and which children would this be inappropriate and harmful for? In the absence of better methods of scrutiny and diagnosis, is it more appropriate to err on the belief that gender dysphoria will persist, or is it more appropriate to wait and see which cases will desist? Given what resources and knowledge the medical community currently does have, what will do more good than harm overall?

[–]Greensquidsphone 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

It's the trolley problem and we both have different views on which side we should save. Given that every major rate of desistance study is riddled with issues which corrupt the data, and that we have settled on non permanent puberty blockers as the common adolescent treatment, I feel like the best answer is to a) gatekeep harder early and make a clear psychological distinction between gender incongruence and dysphoria, b) put more money into sussing out dysphoria in youth more accurately, and c) PROPERLY study desistence so we can find signs of it early and never put them on blockers or hormones in the first place.

It's not a perfect answer because one doesn't exist, but it's miles better than just saying well we have indeterminable numbers on desistence so sorry trans kids just wait til you're older and suffer that much more. It's also lofty and won't ever happen but idk perfect worlds and whatnot.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

As much as I like your solutions, they don't really seem like things that can be immediately implemented and will take time, money and concerted effort to make such institutional changes. I do like your ideas about those, though! But pragmatically, given current practices, it seems to make more sense to reduce the use of medication in children and adolescents until such changes are implemented.

The author of this article (https://aquila.usm.edu/ojhe/vol14/iss2/3/) provides a fantastic overview of this dilemma, and provides detailed arguments both for and against the use of endocrine treatment of gender dysphoria in children that echo what we have discussed here, ultimately concluding that there is not enough evidence to encourage this form of treatment, while simultaneously emphasizing the need for care of gender dysphoric youth:

"Looking at future directions, appropriate longitudinal studies should be performed, with consent and disclosure of the potential risks discussed previously, in order to clarify safety concerns or lack thereof. Conclusive and sufficient evidence of long term safety and evaluation must be performed in order to align with evidence based medicine guidelines, and further considerations such as ensuring minimal harm to the patient both in the present as well as in the future in order to uphold ethical guiding principles which support the overall good for the patient of discussion. From an ethical standpoint it is not morally justified to provide pubertal suppression medications, and cross-sex hormones to minor populations until further evaluation of such methods for treatment are performed instead, we should rely on evidence based and safer methods for treatment such as psychotherapy."

That's not even considering possibilities of later desistance or de-transition, which are much more likely outcomes. And I believe the refusal to act or make a decision is an action and decision unto itself, which I mentioned in my original big long response to the OP. If this were a trolley problem and a decision of whether to pull the lever must be made, then why not save as many as one can?

[–]Greensquidsphone 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

it seems to make more sense to reduce the use of medication in children and adolescents until such changes are implemented.

As long as we can make a distinction between reduce and eliminate altogether then i 100% agree. Glanced at the link and it seems like a good read, I'll try to work through it tonight at work, thanks!

[–]emptiedriver 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That children can consent, and that the opinion of non-medical experts who are almost certainly prejudiced have no bearing on the actual reality of the situation.

Who decides if children can consent? That is a legal decision. You can claim that they can, but it is social decision not a medical one. When we allow a driver's license, the age of drinking, of voting, of sexual consent, or generally when a person must take on their own personal responsibility rather than be able to rely on guardians - when someone stops being a "minor" - is a case for courts to decide. Parents are meant to do what's best for the kid, so should choose medical procedures that are necessary, but if it can be put off, then it is not necessary, and if there are side effects and other possible outcomes, a parent will have a better perspective than a teenager on the meaning of that.

Hopefully a decision can be reached as a family, but the idea that the child should always be able to take the lead in something like this is dangerous. There are already scenarios in place for a kid in an abusive situation to become a ward of the state or to emancipate from guardianship altogether, if it is truly a case where the parents are not looking out for the kid's needs. But if it's a case of parents who have real concerns about the future of a teenager who is going through a tough time and may not be able to see the long-term consequences of a choice, there's no reason for the teenager to be able to override the parent's authority and still expect to be provided for & protected by those parents.