4 ms·

I think the fact that our society is being more thoughtful towards gender identity is a good thing. But is it possible in our attempt to be thoughtful we someti

by jonesb6 11y ago

I think the fact that our society is being more thoughtful towards gender identity is a good thing. But is it possible in our attempt to be thoughtful we sometimes will over analyze individual situations and change our environments, interactions, and treatment, towards those we are trying to help in such a way that it is actually detrimental to them? In the case of allowing children to choose their identity in the way this article describes, is it possible that a parent might misunderstand their child and enable a short-term change that could be detrimental to a child's development (socially, academically, etc)? I feel like gender identity is a hot issue right now, and people in general get caught up in the rhetoric and forget about the actual people.

chimeracoder 11y ago
> a short-term change that could be detrimental to a child's development (socially, academically, etc)? Why should letting a child explore their gender identity be any more detrimental to their development than letting them explore their sexuality? It'd be far worse to tell them to repress it and not let them come to understand themselves.
- j4kp07 11y ago
  Note that the OP said "COULD be detrimental" while you shoot from the hip with a definitive "It WOULD be far worse [otherwise]". "Why should letting a child explore their gender identity be any more detrimental to their development than letting them explore their sexuality?" Because some kids, sometimes, make stupid decisions. Also, what 3-year-old (from the original article) needs to "explore their sexuality"?
tomlock 11y ago
I think the article is quite aware of that over analysis - and even mentions that a high amount have been found in some studies to not transition in later life. I guess the question is, what are we more willing to risk? Is it worth risking higher rates of suicide and self harm versus, at least in the case of blockers, a delayed puberty? Should people get tattoos if they are confident now that they should?

by jonesb6 11y ago

chimeracoder 11y ago

> a short-term change that could be detrimental to a child's development (socially, academically, etc)? Why should letting a child explore their gender identity be any more detrimental to their development than letting them explore their sexuality? It'd be far worse to tell them to repress it and not let them come to understand themselves.

j4kp07 11y ago
Note that the OP said "COULD be detrimental" while you shoot from the hip with a definitive "It WOULD be far worse [otherwise]". "Why should letting a child explore their gender identity be any more detrimental to their development than letting them explore their sexuality?" Because some kids, sometimes, make stupid decisions. Also, what 3-year-old (from the original article) needs to "explore their sexuality"?

tomlock 11y ago

I think the article is quite aware of that over analysis - and even mentions that a high amount have been found in some studies to not transition in later life. I guess the question is, what are we more willing to risk? Is it worth risking higher rates of suicide and self harm versus, at least in the case of blockers, a delayed puberty? Should people get tattoos if they are confident now that they should?