5 ms·

Your comment is a good example of the critique at the top of this thread. You start with the worst possible interpretation of my comment, use a metaphor about b

Your comment is a good example of the critique at the top of this thread. You start with the worst possible interpretation of my comment, use a metaphor about bestiality and immediately dismiss my comment as a fallacy.

tptacek 7y ago
I understand why you'd read it that way and I'm sorry if I worded it carelessly, but I didn't make the "bestiality" thing up and wasn't implying that you were making that comparison. Those really were dots that people, including senior policymakers, connected. Something you might want to read up on is "the parade of horribles", which is what you're essentially invoking when you suggest that any government protection for trans people is a slippery slope to "unproven and ill-advised treatment for children". I think you'll find that the mainstream public policy about trans people is whether they should have access to facilities or recourse to anti-discrimination laws when they're fired from jobs. You'll have to address those policy debates on the merits, without appeals to some hypothetical future horror.
- DuskStar 7y ago
  Except that the horrible in question - giving puberty blockers and other transgender treatments to children - is already happening, and I think I remember a case in Canada where that was done despite the wishes of the parents.
  - tptacek 7y ago
    All a puberty blocker does is delay the onset of puberty. They're part of the medical standard of care, and have no permanent effects that require reversal; their effects end as soon as they're taken. The whole point of them is to buy time for patients to more carefully consider their path going forward. They're practically the opposite of "unproven and ill-advised". I'm not seeing the "horrible" here. But more to the point: the public policy debate about trans people is about whether they can use the bathroom or be fired from jobs.
    - DuskStar 7y ago
      > All a puberty blocker does is delay the onset of puberty. They're part of the medical standard of care, and have no permanent effects that require reversal; their effects end as soon as they're taken. If that's true, then that's fine! But I was under the impression that there were still significant concerns about the long term safety of those drugs. (And other allegations besides safety - I've heard that many/most people who identify as the opposite gender prior to puberty begin to identify as their birth gender following puberty, but I don't have a source there) And it sure seems to me like the debate is about more than just bathrooms. "Can there be legal repercussions for misgendering someone", for instance.
      - tptacek 7y ago
        So, let's acknowledge that we're just random people on a message board discussing a complicated topic neither of us are authoritative about, and that we're both going to do the standard message board thing of quickly Googling for resources that connect to our arguments. With that said: the resources I found strongly suggest that puberty blockers are, especially for patients with strong dysphoria (which is dangerous in its own right!) safe and present no meaningful long-term consequences. The more powerful argument here would be that the people who do have the most authority in this subject --- medical professionals --- appear to have achieved a consensus on this topic, and that most of the push-back on it seems to be from laypeople second-guessing them. If those laypeople themselves can generate powerful arguments, more power to them, but I don't see what they are. So far, I'm inclined to trust the doctors. Outside of the Jordan Peterverse, I don't see "legal consequences for misgendering people" as a live issue, but I'll say right now that I'm only familiar with and interested in the debate in the US, where the story we're commenting on takes place, and which is the most important venue for the "snowflakes and safe spaces" debate.
    - manfredo 7y ago
      No permanent side effects? Risks of puberty blockers include compromise bone development, underdeveloped genitals, and infertility. I don't know where you're claiming that they're the "opposite of unproved and ill-advised". Using synthetic hormones to block puberty in adolescents and pre-teens is something that's only been done in the last decade or so. Most publications indicate that the safety is far from certain, due to the limited amount of time that these drugs have been used [1]. The potential benefit of puberty blockers is that it potentially makes children who transition to the opposite sex more aesthetically similar to that sex. But since the majority of people who identify as transgender as children desist [2] (they eventually identify as their sex at birth) many are going to endure the risks of puberty blockers for no benefit. 1. https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/142/4/e20182162 https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/142/4/e201821... 2. https://www.kqed.org/futureofyou/441784/the-controversial-research-on-desistance-in-transgender-youth https://www.kqed.org/futureofyou/441784/the-controversial-re...
  - namirez 7y ago
    > despite the wishes of the parents This is a complex subject and you're entitled to your opinion, but please don't misrepresent facts. The kid and the mother want the treatment, but the father is trying to block it. Source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/sep/06/trans-teenager-case-canada-father-halts-treatment https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/sep/06/trans-teenager...
    - DuskStar 7y ago
      And that does change things!
      - dsr_ 7y ago
        Yes, it does.
fzeroracer 7y ago
Your argument begins with the least charitable interpretation of people who support said surgery so I'm not sure how you can claim the high ground here. > Dissidents may believe that governmental power is being misused to further a harmful ideology and to push unproven and ill-advised treatments on children. This is the exact same argument that was used in the past against gay marriage. There is no scientific basis behind this argument, just an appeal to fear and irrationality.

tptacek 7y ago

I understand why you'd read it that way and I'm sorry if I worded it carelessly, but I didn't make the "bestiality" thing up and wasn't implying that you were making that comparison. Those really were dots that people, including senior policymakers, connected. Something you might want to read up on is "the parade of horribles", which is what you're essentially invoking when you suggest that any government protection for trans people is a slippery slope to "unproven and ill-advised treatment for children". I think you'll find that the mainstream public policy about trans people is whether they should have access to facilities or recourse to anti-discrimination laws when they're fired from jobs. You'll have to address those policy debates on the merits, without appeals to some hypothetical future horror.

DuskStar 7y ago
Except that the horrible in question - giving puberty blockers and other transgender treatments to children - is already happening, and I think I remember a case in Canada where that was done despite the wishes of the parents.
- tptacek 7y ago
  All a puberty blocker does is delay the onset of puberty. They're part of the medical standard of care, and have no permanent effects that require reversal; their effects end as soon as they're taken. The whole point of them is to buy time for patients to more carefully consider their path going forward. They're practically the opposite of "unproven and ill-advised". I'm not seeing the "horrible" here. But more to the point: the public policy debate about trans people is about whether they can use the bathroom or be fired from jobs.
  - DuskStar 7y ago
    > All a puberty blocker does is delay the onset of puberty. They're part of the medical standard of care, and have no permanent effects that require reversal; their effects end as soon as they're taken. If that's true, then that's fine! But I was under the impression that there were still significant concerns about the long term safety of those drugs. (And other allegations besides safety - I've heard that many/most people who identify as the opposite gender prior to puberty begin to identify as their birth gender following puberty, but I don't have a source there) And it sure seems to me like the debate is about more than just bathrooms. "Can there be legal repercussions for misgendering someone", for instance.
    - tptacek 7y ago
      So, let's acknowledge that we're just random people on a message board discussing a complicated topic neither of us are authoritative about, and that we're both going to do the standard message board thing of quickly Googling for resources that connect to our arguments. With that said: the resources I found strongly suggest that puberty blockers are, especially for patients with strong dysphoria (which is dangerous in its own right!) safe and present no meaningful long-term consequences. The more powerful argument here would be that the people who do have the most authority in this subject --- medical professionals --- appear to have achieved a consensus on this topic, and that most of the push-back on it seems to be from laypeople second-guessing them. If those laypeople themselves can generate powerful arguments, more power to them, but I don't see what they are. So far, I'm inclined to trust the doctors. Outside of the Jordan Peterverse, I don't see "legal consequences for misgendering people" as a live issue, but I'll say right now that I'm only familiar with and interested in the debate in the US, where the story we're commenting on takes place, and which is the most important venue for the "snowflakes and safe spaces" debate.
  - manfredo 7y ago
    No permanent side effects? Risks of puberty blockers include compromise bone development, underdeveloped genitals, and infertility. I don't know where you're claiming that they're the "opposite of unproved and ill-advised". Using synthetic hormones to block puberty in adolescents and pre-teens is something that's only been done in the last decade or so. Most publications indicate that the safety is far from certain, due to the limited amount of time that these drugs have been used [1]. The potential benefit of puberty blockers is that it potentially makes children who transition to the opposite sex more aesthetically similar to that sex. But since the majority of people who identify as transgender as children desist [2] (they eventually identify as their sex at birth) many are going to endure the risks of puberty blockers for no benefit. 1. https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/142/4/e20182162 https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/142/4/e201821... 2. https://www.kqed.org/futureofyou/441784/the-controversial-research-on-desistance-in-transgender-youth https://www.kqed.org/futureofyou/441784/the-controversial-re...
- namirez 7y ago
  > despite the wishes of the parents This is a complex subject and you're entitled to your opinion, but please don't misrepresent facts. The kid and the mother want the treatment, but the father is trying to block it. Source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/sep/06/trans-teenager-case-canada-father-halts-treatment https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/sep/06/trans-teenager...
  - DuskStar 7y ago
    And that does change things!
    - dsr_ 7y ago
      Yes, it does.

fzeroracer 7y ago

Your argument begins with the least charitable interpretation of people who support said surgery so I'm not sure how you can claim the high ground here. > Dissidents may believe that governmental power is being misused to further a harmful ideology and to push unproven and ill-advised treatments on children. This is the exact same argument that was used in the past against gay marriage. There is no scientific basis behind this argument, just an appeal to fear and irrationality.