QT: Is there such a thing as a man wants to be a woman? + 10 additional questions

submitted by SnowAssMan from self.GCdebatesQT

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

That’s actually in line with my point. No one is getting treatment at 8 so whether they desist is pretty much irrelevant. The relevant statistics would be desistance from adolescence to adulthood. And I’ve never seen anyone produce data on that.

[–]MarkTwainiac 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

But the study that Fleurista linked to shows that all but 3 of the 25 girls - or 88% - diagnosed with childhood GID had desisted when seen at follow-up, at which point they ranged in age from 15-36 years old. So it very clearly shows, as other studies on boys do, that the vast majority of kids diagnosed with childhood GID in the past (what today would be called childhood GD) grew out of it as they went through adolescence and approached/entered adulthood - if, that is, they were allowed to just be, their opposite-sex gender identity was not affirmed but also not condemned or shamed, they weren't "socially transitioned," and their natural body and brain development was not impeded/interfered with by administration of the development-blocking drugs and exogenous cross-sex hormones in wide use for such kids today.

Again, there's confusion here because you seem to be lumping together childhood-onset GID/GD with adolescent-onset GID/GD. When the reality is that childhood-onset and adolescent-onset GID/GD are very different to one another even when they occur in the same sex, and when they occur in males and females adolescent-onset GID/GD are two completely, entirely, utterly different phenomena.

Moreover, a paper published in 2008 like the one Fleurista cited is unfortunately no longer relevant to what's going on now, or has been going on in recent years. At the time that study was completed, the subjects were 15-36, meaning they'd now range in age from 29 to 50. Born from 1971 to/through 1992, these girls/women are of entirely different generations and grew up in totally different worlds than today's "trans kids" and young adults. When they were growing up, it's true as you say that no one was getting medical interventions at 8 - or at 12, either. But since that study was done, there's been a sea change. Nowadays as in the past 5-10 years, kids are indeed being given blockers and CSH as young as 8, and girls are getting surgeries to remove their breasts as young as 13 (and now 12 in some cases).

The other thing is, at the time the girls in that study were assessed and diagnosed with GID, they had a mean age of 8.88 years, but an actual age range, 3-12 years. Which IMO means they should NOT have been lumped together as one group and all assumed to have childhood GID. Fact is, girls age 9-12 are usually entering or well into adolescence. It's common for girls begin to breast development at 9-10, and many have large breasts by 11-12. Same goes for periods, which many girls get at 10-11. For example, I got mine shortly after I turned 11 - which was completely normal. A girl of 3-8 who says she wants to be a boy will almost always be doing so for very, very different reasons than a girl of 9-12.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

But the study that Fleurista linked to shows that all but 3 of the 25 girls - or 88% - diagnosed with childhood GID had desisted when seen at follow-up, at which point they ranged in age from 15-36 years old.

My point is that’s not the relevant statistic. Childhood desistance doesn’t demonstrate that adolescent dysphorics will desist in any number. And since that’s when anything not simply reversible is even on the table.

I would argue that social transition would at least potentially be useful regardless as an exploratory measure for the dysphoric person. If living as you wish doesn’t help you know that isn’t your solution.

I’m not referring to onset time. I’m saying they haven’t produced anything on desistance rates for adolescents who are dysphoric whether it’s new or old at that time. And that’s the relevant data that is needed for this discussion.

[–]MarkTwainiac 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You're continuing to conflate different terms and groups, posting in what appears to be an intentionally confusing way. My hunch is that this is to cover up the fact that you really don't have much to contribute to the convo except complaints about the info you say others haven't provided - and gripes about research you whinge that others haven't done, in part because activists and ideologues on your side would scream bloody murder if they tried.

The study Fleurista linked to is about females who had been assessed between ages 3-12 and diagnosed at that time with what clinicians called childhood GID/GD, and who desisted later on during adolescence. You say this is "not the relevant statistic" - but that's because the only group you seem to think matters in the debate over youth with gender issues are males who develop GD during adolescence (and adulthood too?). Then you say

Childhood desistance doesn’t demonstrate that adolescent dysphorics will desist in any number.

When, LOL, the study at issue was not about "childhood desistance." It was about desistance in adolescence, FFS. Then you say

And since that’s [adolescence] when anything not simply reversible is even on the table.

WTF? How can you make such a claim after you've just been given ample evidence by me and others that children of both sexes are being put on medications (development blockers and CSH) that have irreversible effects as young as 8, and that girls are getting their breasts amputated as young as 13. Once a girl has her breasts cut off, there's no way to get them back. That's the definition of irreversible.

Also, when children are put on development blockers at 11-12 like Jazz, Jackie and Trinity, then they go on to take CSH, their gonads never mature, so these children end up sterile. Irreversibly sterile.

Since you seem only to care about males, then it should be of interest to you that the use of development blockers starting at 11-12 in males like Jackie, Jazz and Trinity, followed by CSH, left them with the penises and testicles of little boys - and with undeveloped sexual function and capacity too. This means impaired or no ability to orgasm (and in the case of Jazz, no sexual function, ability to orgasm or any libido either) AND it meant they didn't have enough penile and scrotal skin to use customary techniques when they had their "gender affirming" genital surgeries at age 16 (in Jackie's and Trinity's cases), and at 17 in Jazz's. Not having enough material to work with means these young males had to have surgeries using tissues from other parts of the body, which in the case of Jazz we know didn't turn out well. How this is supposed to help these young males "pass" better is beyond me.

As for young people who develop GD during adolescence, I agree more research is needed. But again, these kids are not a monolith, and they are developing adolescent GD for very different reasons. The females are generally fleeing from sexual objectification, whilst the males are generally pursuing what the females are running from. A lot of females who develop GD in adolescence do seem to desist from it later in adolescence or in early adulthood. But in males, adolescent-onset GD is a thornier problem that might well turn out to be more permanent because in males, adolescent GD is usually caused by AGP - and AGP is driven by two incredibly powerful forces: the human male sex drive and narcissism. Moreover, when indulged instead of being treated in other ways, AGP seems to be a progressive disorder that overtakes the lives of those who develop it.