4 ms·

Maybe the word "kid" wasn't the right one for conveying my intention. I wasn't thinking "children 10 and under" but rather adolescents, maybe 13-18. The period

by delecti 10y ago

Maybe the word "kid" wasn't the right one for conveying my intention. I wasn't thinking "children 10 and under" but rather adolescents, maybe 13-18. The period of a person's life when they're sorting out who they are. Speaking from experience, being a transgender kid sucks, but I agree that before 10 nothing a person says or does should be considered immutable gospel about their identity. That said, while it's not immutable, it's still something parents should listen to. Ignoring a gender nonconforming child expressing themselves is a bigger risk than encouraging a kid who eventually grows out of it. Also, no pre-pubescent kids are getting hormones, just blockers, which are fully reversible if it is just a phase. It's not standard procedure to start actual hormones until about 16. If the kid "snaps out of it" then they stop taking the blockers, and grow up no worse for wear. But if they maintain their transgender identity, those blockers will save them a world of distress.

wyager 10y ago
> If the kid "snaps out of it" then they stop taking the blockers It seems astoundingly likely that a heavy dose of the correct set of sex hormones is precisely what causes these kids to "snap out of it" in the first place. > and grow up no worse for wear I'm very skeptical of this claim. There's no way that disrupting such a fundamental developmental stage in such an aggressive way can just be shrugged off. Does the collective neurological and physiological damage of disrupting all these kids' development outweigh the benefit to the 2%-20% who actually end up continuing to identify as trans? And how much does that percentage decrease in the absence of hormone blockers?
- delecti 10y ago
  > It seems astoundingly likely that a heavy dose of the correct set of sex hormones is precisely what causes these kids to "snap out of it" in the first place. That sort of treatment used to be common. In general it results in the trans kids getting horribly depressed, often killing themselves. Doctors with more field experience and who have done more research than me have settled on blockers as a safe and effective treatment with no long-term side effects if they're discontinued. You'll have to provide something more than gut feeling that they can't just be shrugged off.
  - dTal 10y ago
    I think the implication wasn't that one should "treat" people with hormones so much as let nature take its course (speaking from experience, the natural hormone surge at the start of puberty definitely counts as a "heavy dose").
- notahacker 10y ago
  > Does the collective neurological and physiological damage of disrupting all these kids' development outweigh the benefit to the 2%-20% who actually end up continuing to identify as trans? Blockers aren't given to seven year olds who show up as gender nonconforming in Rorsach tests and play tasks in the GID studies that form the basis of that figure. The paper you quoted earlier states: "GID persisting into early puberty appears to be highly persistent: at the Amsterdam gender identity clinic for adolescents, none of the patients who were diagnosed with a GID and considered eligible for SR dropped out of the diagnostic or treatment procedures or regretted SR. Even some of those who were not eligible to start treatment before the age of 18 years because of serious psychiatric comorbidity, extremely adverse living circumstances, or a combination of both, persisted in their wish for SR. Because their other problems had to be addressed before they were regarded eligible to start SR successfully, their treatment was usually delayed until after 18 years of age."

by delecti 10y ago

wyager 10y ago

> If the kid "snaps out of it" then they stop taking the blockers It seems astoundingly likely that a heavy dose of the correct set of sex hormones is precisely what causes these kids to "snap out of it" in the first place. > and grow up no worse for wear I'm very skeptical of this claim. There's no way that disrupting such a fundamental developmental stage in such an aggressive way can just be shrugged off. Does the collective neurological and physiological damage of disrupting all these kids' development outweigh the benefit to the 2%-20% who actually end up continuing to identify as trans? And how much does that percentage decrease in the absence of hormone blockers?

delecti 10y ago
> It seems astoundingly likely that a heavy dose of the correct set of sex hormones is precisely what causes these kids to "snap out of it" in the first place. That sort of treatment used to be common. In general it results in the trans kids getting horribly depressed, often killing themselves. Doctors with more field experience and who have done more research than me have settled on blockers as a safe and effective treatment with no long-term side effects if they're discontinued. You'll have to provide something more than gut feeling that they can't just be shrugged off.
- dTal 10y ago
  I think the implication wasn't that one should "treat" people with hormones so much as let nature take its course (speaking from experience, the natural hormone surge at the start of puberty definitely counts as a "heavy dose").
notahacker 10y ago
> Does the collective neurological and physiological damage of disrupting all these kids' development outweigh the benefit to the 2%-20% who actually end up continuing to identify as trans? Blockers aren't given to seven year olds who show up as gender nonconforming in Rorsach tests and play tasks in the GID studies that form the basis of that figure. The paper you quoted earlier states: "GID persisting into early puberty appears to be highly persistent: at the Amsterdam gender identity clinic for adolescents, none of the patients who were diagnosed with a GID and considered eligible for SR dropped out of the diagnostic or treatment procedures or regretted SR. Even some of those who were not eligible to start treatment before the age of 18 years because of serious psychiatric comorbidity, extremely adverse living circumstances, or a combination of both, persisted in their wish for SR. Because their other problems had to be addressed before they were regarded eligible to start SR successfully, their treatment was usually delayed until after 18 years of age."