3 ms·

Hormone blockers are not "transition" and the hormone treatments given to trans teenagers are regularly prescribed for cis people of all ages for other reasons.

nostrebored 6y ago
Yes... Like hormonal imbalance. This is a disingenuous framing.
- morelisp 6y ago
  Yes, and like hormonal imbalance in cis people, the evidence is clear the benefits of the treatments outweigh the risks also for trans people. This is how we make medical decisions, not as a proxy for moral panic. The only disingenuous framing is hormone blockers as "transition". I'm extremely cynical about Amazon's move qua their own ethics, here but I also understand where the internal pressure is coming from given how rapidly the UK mainstreamed such deep transphobia.
throwaway53453 6y ago
Read the article again. We know there are severe long term effects to a child's development, and there's been more than a few cases of people saying they regret it decades down the line.
- morelisp 6y ago
  As is the normal talking point for the UK anti-trans lobby, you are conflating the medical intervention for children (hormone blockers) with the medical intervention for young adults (hormones) with the long-term effects of hormones after taking them for years - well into adulthood. Some adults do regret the long-term effects of their hormone treatments. Many more adults regret not getting access to hormone treatments sooner. Others regret going off hormones for personal or professional reasons and then not being able to start again because their doctor says they must not really be trans. The solution for all these problems is easier and more flexible access to the treatments and a society more open to all modes of gender. Not a "but the children" moral panic.
  - throwaway53453 6y ago
    First, I'm not some kind of shill who's "part of the UK anti-trans lobby". I'm not anti trans. What I am concerned about is damaging children's hormonal development and having them later regret it. > Some adults do regret the long-term effects of their hormone treatments. Even a single child regretting this when they're older is enough for me to say this is morally ambiguous, but I bet you those numbers will go up in decades to come.
    - vertex-four 6y ago
      What about children who are later angry they could not get treatment that would’ve helped them? Do they not count? We could just, never treat anyone for anything, then nobody would ever regret any treatment.
      - throwaway53453 6y ago
        It's not a good solution, but no. We don't allow children to have sex until they're 16, or drink until 18, for valid reason. This is the same situation. Which is that they're not mentally developed enough to consent to those things.
        vertex-four 6y ago
        There is a doctor involved. There is, for children, an incredibly long wait time, a number of sessions in order to diagnose, very likely therapy, more appointments to decide what is the correct treatment process. If everyone involved agrees they should go on puberty blockers (for example, because their body development is causing them problems in line with gender dysphoria diagnostic criteria), there’s therapy and more assessments all the way through that. And now in the UK a fucking court is involved too. In a medical decision. That is, someone who is not a doctor has complete control over someone’s medical treatment. A child can get put on lithium and kill their emotions for years with less hassle. And no court involved. That should tell you the priorities of the people who tell you it is a good idea to prevent kids from accessing medicine that is widely agreed to be safe and effective. It wasn’t easy for children to be put on puberty blockers before and it’s worse now. If you can’t see how it’s fucked that all this isn’t enough, and we must make it even more impossible for doctors to do their jobs, I don’t know what to say.

nostrebored 6y ago

Yes... Like hormonal imbalance. This is a disingenuous framing.

morelisp 6y ago
Yes, and like hormonal imbalance in cis people, the evidence is clear the benefits of the treatments outweigh the risks also for trans people. This is how we make medical decisions, not as a proxy for moral panic. The only disingenuous framing is hormone blockers as "transition". I'm extremely cynical about Amazon's move qua their own ethics, here but I also understand where the internal pressure is coming from given how rapidly the UK mainstreamed such deep transphobia.

throwaway53453 6y ago

Read the article again. We know there are severe long term effects to a child's development, and there's been more than a few cases of people saying they regret it decades down the line.

morelisp 6y ago
As is the normal talking point for the UK anti-trans lobby, you are conflating the medical intervention for children (hormone blockers) with the medical intervention for young adults (hormones) with the long-term effects of hormones after taking them for years - well into adulthood. Some adults do regret the long-term effects of their hormone treatments. Many more adults regret not getting access to hormone treatments sooner. Others regret going off hormones for personal or professional reasons and then not being able to start again because their doctor says they must not really be trans. The solution for all these problems is easier and more flexible access to the treatments and a society more open to all modes of gender. Not a "but the children" moral panic.
- throwaway53453 6y ago
  First, I'm not some kind of shill who's "part of the UK anti-trans lobby". I'm not anti trans. What I am concerned about is damaging children's hormonal development and having them later regret it. > Some adults do regret the long-term effects of their hormone treatments. Even a single child regretting this when they're older is enough for me to say this is morally ambiguous, but I bet you those numbers will go up in decades to come.
  - vertex-four 6y ago
    What about children who are later angry they could not get treatment that would’ve helped them? Do they not count? We could just, never treat anyone for anything, then nobody would ever regret any treatment.
    - throwaway53453 6y ago
      It's not a good solution, but no. We don't allow children to have sex until they're 16, or drink until 18, for valid reason. This is the same situation. Which is that they're not mentally developed enough to consent to those things.
      - vertex-four 6y ago
        There is a doctor involved. There is, for children, an incredibly long wait time, a number of sessions in order to diagnose, very likely therapy, more appointments to decide what is the correct treatment process. If everyone involved agrees they should go on puberty blockers (for example, because their body development is causing them problems in line with gender dysphoria diagnostic criteria), there’s therapy and more assessments all the way through that. And now in the UK a fucking court is involved too. In a medical decision. That is, someone who is not a doctor has complete control over someone’s medical treatment. A child can get put on lithium and kill their emotions for years with less hassle. And no court involved. That should tell you the priorities of the people who tell you it is a good idea to prevent kids from accessing medicine that is widely agreed to be safe and effective. It wasn’t easy for children to be put on puberty blockers before and it’s worse now. If you can’t see how it’s fucked that all this isn’t enough, and we must make it even more impossible for doctors to do their jobs, I don’t know what to say.