5 ms·

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sex-change-treatment-for-kids-on-the-rise/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sex-change-treatment-for-kids-o... And this is from 2012.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sex-change-treatment-for-kids-on-the-rise/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sex-change-treatment-for-kids-o... And this is from 2012. I'm frankly not sure how I feel about this issue. On the one hand, you could argue it's better to transition before puberty solidifies the undesired sexual characteristics. On the other, certainly some of these kids would end up feeling OK fine with where nature brings them after puberty passes. It's a tough issue and I respect both viewpoints. More broadly, your reasoning here is rather silly. Just because you haven't noticed something yet doesn't mean it isn't a real thing.

sp332 6y ago
I think the terms used in the article are confusing. The clarification is about halfway through: The drugs used by the clinics are approved for delaying puberty in kids who start maturing too soon. The drugs' effects are reversible, and Spack said they've caused no complications in his patients. The idea is to give these children time to mature emotionally and make sure they want to proceed with a permanent sex change. The sex reassignment doesn't happen until they are at least 16 (which is still earlier than I expected).
- dogma1138 6y ago
  That’s the thing puberty blockers aren’t exactly reversible when used for any substantial duration and quite often cause developmental issues in general, these aren’t cases of premature puberty you can’t just pause it for a few years and expect things to go back.
  - 666lumberjack 6y ago
    >Puberty blockers aren't exactly reversible That's not what the medical consensus[1] says. I hope you have some damn good evidence to the contrary if you want to deny tens of thousands of people access to life-saving medical treatment. [1] https://www.seattlechildrens.org/pdf/PE2572.pdf https://www.seattlechildrens.org/pdf/PE2572.pdf
    - dogma1138 6y ago
      It’s really not which is why medical associations are putting more strongly worded guidance these days: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-nhs-has-quietly-changed-its-trans-guidance-to-reflect-reality https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-nhs-has-quietly-chan...
      - DanBC 6y ago
        Quoting the spectator destroys any kind of argument you're trying to make. The Spectator isn't a credible source for any medical information, especially for anything about GIDS and GICS. They're an explicitly anti-trans publication, and have posted many articles railing against trans acceptance. James Kirkup spends his days posting anti-trans material on twitter. Because he's driven by his ideology of hate he makes a load of mistakes throughout this article. For example: > Although the Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) advises this is a physically reversible treatment if stopped, it is not known what the psychological effects may be. This isn't talking about the effects of hormone suppressants, it's talking about the psychological harm of discontinued transition for people with gender dysphoria. If you start a course of treatment thinking you're finally on a pathway to full transition, and then you have to stop for some reason, that stoppage causes harm. Another example is the way he claims to be talking about puberty suppressants, but then links the list off effects for cross-sex hormones. Those are never given to people under 16 in England, so they're not relevant to a discussion of puberty suppressants. > why has the NHS so significantly changed its main publication on hormone treatment for children without any announcement or fanfare? Because that's how the NHS website works. This is, frankly, a silly point. > Given that the NHS now says that hormone therapy for gender-variant children has unknown long-term effects on the physical and mental health of those children, why is the NHS still using such treatments on children? We don't know if these are harmful or not (but all the evidence we have so far suggests not). But we do know that denying children access to these meds causes harm. There's not much difference here between puberty suppressants and many other meds used for children. We don't know the long term effects of a bunch of meds, but you don't hear the Spectator ever talking about those meds.
        6y ago

sp332 6y ago

I think the terms used in the article are confusing. The clarification is about halfway through: The drugs used by the clinics are approved for delaying puberty in kids who start maturing too soon. The drugs' effects are reversible, and Spack said they've caused no complications in his patients. The idea is to give these children time to mature emotionally and make sure they want to proceed with a permanent sex change. The sex reassignment doesn't happen until they are at least 16 (which is still earlier than I expected).

dogma1138 6y ago
That’s the thing puberty blockers aren’t exactly reversible when used for any substantial duration and quite often cause developmental issues in general, these aren’t cases of premature puberty you can’t just pause it for a few years and expect things to go back.
- 666lumberjack 6y ago
  >Puberty blockers aren't exactly reversible That's not what the medical consensus[1] says. I hope you have some damn good evidence to the contrary if you want to deny tens of thousands of people access to life-saving medical treatment. [1] https://www.seattlechildrens.org/pdf/PE2572.pdf https://www.seattlechildrens.org/pdf/PE2572.pdf
  - dogma1138 6y ago
    It’s really not which is why medical associations are putting more strongly worded guidance these days: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-nhs-has-quietly-changed-its-trans-guidance-to-reflect-reality https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-nhs-has-quietly-chan...
    - DanBC 6y ago
      Quoting the spectator destroys any kind of argument you're trying to make. The Spectator isn't a credible source for any medical information, especially for anything about GIDS and GICS. They're an explicitly anti-trans publication, and have posted many articles railing against trans acceptance. James Kirkup spends his days posting anti-trans material on twitter. Because he's driven by his ideology of hate he makes a load of mistakes throughout this article. For example: > Although the Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) advises this is a physically reversible treatment if stopped, it is not known what the psychological effects may be. This isn't talking about the effects of hormone suppressants, it's talking about the psychological harm of discontinued transition for people with gender dysphoria. If you start a course of treatment thinking you're finally on a pathway to full transition, and then you have to stop for some reason, that stoppage causes harm. Another example is the way he claims to be talking about puberty suppressants, but then links the list off effects for cross-sex hormones. Those are never given to people under 16 in England, so they're not relevant to a discussion of puberty suppressants. > why has the NHS so significantly changed its main publication on hormone treatment for children without any announcement or fanfare? Because that's how the NHS website works. This is, frankly, a silly point. > Given that the NHS now says that hormone therapy for gender-variant children has unknown long-term effects on the physical and mental health of those children, why is the NHS still using such treatments on children? We don't know if these are harmful or not (but all the evidence we have so far suggests not). But we do know that denying children access to these meds causes harm. There's not much difference here between puberty suppressants and many other meds used for children. We don't know the long term effects of a bunch of meds, but you don't hear the Spectator ever talking about those meds.
      - 6y ago