9 ms·

It is in fact legal, and does in fact happen. Three examples found with three minutes googling[1][2][3], plus an article identifying 51 mastectomy approvals for

by jl6 4y ago

It is in fact legal, and does in fact happen. Three examples found with three minutes googling[1][2][3], plus an article identifying 51 mastectomy approvals for under-18s[4] in Scotland alone. Are these just isolated cases performed by overzealous doctors? No, WPATH's current guidelines allow for mastectomies at age 16, and the latest Standards of Care draft[5] calls for reducing this to 15. What about the safety and reversibility of puberty blockers? We don't know. See this letter[6] arising from the Cass Review outlining the evidence gap. The current approach to treating gender dysphoria is a slow-motion trainwreck medical scandal. I strongly recommend reading the Cass Review interim report[7] which outlines the numerous ways in which gender-dysphoric children are being failed by current treatment models. [1] https://thevelvetchronicle.com/double-mastectomy-at-15-detrans-16-year-old-now-seeks-reversal/ https://thevelvetchronicle.com/double-mastectomy-at-15-detra... [2] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/03/18/about-a-boy-2 https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/03/18/about-a-boy-2 [3] https://mercatornet.com/chloe-cole-gender-transition/80073/ https://mercatornet.com/chloe-cole-gender-transition/80073/ [4] https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/scottish-doctors-approved-breast-removal-for-51-trans-teenagers-qvkmz8r2c https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/scottish-doctors-approved... [5] https://www.wpath.org/media/cms/Documents/SOC%20v8/SOC8%20Chapters%20for%20Public%20Comment/SOC8%20Chapter%20Draft%20for%20Public%20Comment%20-%20Adolescent.pdf https://www.wpath.org/media/cms/Documents/SOC%20v8/SOC8%20Ch... [6] https://cass.independent-review.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Cass-Review-Letter-to-NHSE_19-July-2022.pdf https://cass.independent-review.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/0... [7] https://cass.independent-review.uk/publications/interim-report/ https://cass.independent-review.uk/publications/interim-repo...

kuschku 4y ago
> under-18s > children There’s a major difference between those terms. 16-year-olds are definitely not children anymore. They can get tattoos, piercings, get a driving license, drink alcohol, enter into contracts, and get jail time if they commit a crime. And cis and inter children at that age can also commit to bodily changing surgeries, e.g. mastectomy for children with gynecomastia is common and legal. The only legal form of body modification for children below that age are circumcision, which should absolutely not be legal, and surgeries for inter children, which shouldn’t be legal either. How come you consider teenagers making decisions for themselves a risk, but parents letting doctors mutilate the genitals of newborn children is something you entirely ignore? That’s what we should worry about. Then there’s the argument regarding puberty blockers, where you’re citing the cass review, which has to be seen in critical light in general. Puberty blockers, when used for cis children, have been well reviewed and approved in wide studies, with lots of evidence proving their safety. There is no evidence gap there – if they’re safe to delay puberty in cis children, they’re just as safe for the same purpose in trans children.
- jl6 4y ago
  I sure hope you’re right, but the point is that we just don’t know. Reviews of that evidence have determined it to be low quality: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-56601386.amp https://www.bbc.com/news/health-56601386.amp Read Cass for more details. I also 110% oppose circumcision.
  - kuschku 4y ago
    The fact that the consensus differs so heavily between countries where this topic has become a political issue, and countries where it’s not yet become one (e.g., Germany), leads me to suspect these sources are biased. This applies especially to british sources on this topic. The NHS and BBC have become heavily influenced by the Tories in recent years, so I’ll have to question your sources.
    - jl6 4y ago
      I keep mentioning Cass because it is a breath of fresh air in this bitterly polarised subject area, compared to news sources. It is level-headed and compassionate, and I encourage you to try reading it, if you can excuse its Britishness.
      - kuschku 4y ago
        I've read it, but its arguments are still at odds with what's done based on it. e.g., the Cass Review explicitly says "The rationale for use of puberty blockers at Tanner Stage 2 of development was based on data that demonstrated that children, particularly birth-registered boys who had early gender incongruence, were unlikely to desist once they reached early puberty" and only recommends reviewing puberty blockers for AFAB people. Yet your comments and british politics instead call for ending the use of puberty blockers for everyone, including AMAB people (and the recent tavistock case actually accomplished that). Most of the other issues the report finds are entirely local to the UK, due to the way healthcare systems differ heavily between countries, and can't be applied elsewhere. I'll be entirely honest, the british system is an absolute mess and needs to be entirely rebuilt (and any british trans person is going to agree), but just stopping all care entirely for years until a new system exists is the worst possible option, and one that's going to cost countless lives.

by jl6 4y ago

kuschku 4y ago

> under-18s > children There’s a major difference between those terms. 16-year-olds are definitely not children anymore. They can get tattoos, piercings, get a driving license, drink alcohol, enter into contracts, and get jail time if they commit a crime. And cis and inter children at that age can also commit to bodily changing surgeries, e.g. mastectomy for children with gynecomastia is common and legal. The only legal form of body modification for children below that age are circumcision, which should absolutely not be legal, and surgeries for inter children, which shouldn’t be legal either. How come you consider teenagers making decisions for themselves a risk, but parents letting doctors mutilate the genitals of newborn children is something you entirely ignore? That’s what we should worry about. Then there’s the argument regarding puberty blockers, where you’re citing the cass review, which has to be seen in critical light in general. Puberty blockers, when used for cis children, have been well reviewed and approved in wide studies, with lots of evidence proving their safety. There is no evidence gap there – if they’re safe to delay puberty in cis children, they’re just as safe for the same purpose in trans children.

jl6 4y ago
I sure hope you’re right, but the point is that we just don’t know. Reviews of that evidence have determined it to be low quality: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-56601386.amp https://www.bbc.com/news/health-56601386.amp Read Cass for more details. I also 110% oppose circumcision.
- kuschku 4y ago
  The fact that the consensus differs so heavily between countries where this topic has become a political issue, and countries where it’s not yet become one (e.g., Germany), leads me to suspect these sources are biased. This applies especially to british sources on this topic. The NHS and BBC have become heavily influenced by the Tories in recent years, so I’ll have to question your sources.
  - jl6 4y ago
    I keep mentioning Cass because it is a breath of fresh air in this bitterly polarised subject area, compared to news sources. It is level-headed and compassionate, and I encourage you to try reading it, if you can excuse its Britishness.
    - kuschku 4y ago
      I've read it, but its arguments are still at odds with what's done based on it. e.g., the Cass Review explicitly says "The rationale for use of puberty blockers at Tanner Stage 2 of development was based on data that demonstrated that children, particularly birth-registered boys who had early gender incongruence, were unlikely to desist once they reached early puberty" and only recommends reviewing puberty blockers for AFAB people. Yet your comments and british politics instead call for ending the use of puberty blockers for everyone, including AMAB people (and the recent tavistock case actually accomplished that). Most of the other issues the report finds are entirely local to the UK, due to the way healthcare systems differ heavily between countries, and can't be applied elsewhere. I'll be entirely honest, the british system is an absolute mess and needs to be entirely rebuilt (and any british trans person is going to agree), but just stopping all care entirely for years until a new system exists is the worst possible option, and one that's going to cost countless lives.