• otp@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    Unless someone is against trans people existing, is there any merit to doing this? Why make a person go through puberty twice just because they’re “too young” to decide?

    • SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      Trans people have been chosen as the current boogeyman of the UK for them to expiate for their own failings as a country, and for the consecutive disasters provoked by the Tories. It’s a sleight of hand that allows them to distract the public with a fear without basis on reality in order to avoid taking responsibility of their own failures.

      • The Snark Urge@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Edit: I think I’ve misread this comment chain, but putting my comment back now

        These drugs have been used on cis children for non trans related conditions (such as precocious puberty in young children and some hormone-sensitive cancers in adults) for a long time and their effects are well known and fully reversible.

        The use of puberty blockers in transgender youth is supported by twelve major medical associations, including the AMA. The people who take them are always, by established protocol, made aware of their major and side effects in relation to their own goals and self perceptions with regard to gender.

        On the basis of the forgoing, trans healthcare is considered life saving by a vast consensus of medical professionals.

        Now let’s hear your side of this totally good faith discussion you’ve been talking about.

        • Hugh_Jeggs@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          including the AMA

          I agree with the previous poster. Medical evidence from a country with for-profit healthcare should be discounted until proven by non-money-motivated experts

          Greed can’t be trusted, and these are children we’re talking about

          • SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            Doctors in Spain, France, Netherlands, Poland, Norway and Denmark also prescribe hormone blockers to minors, just to say a few. Is that non-profit enough for you?

          • The Snark Urge@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            All American medical science is inadmissible in your view? Ironically I was responding to someone else that was lamenting how people weren’t engaging with the evidence in good faith. But hey, who needs to think critically when you can just twist it into a capitalism bad argument. With bathwater like that, who needs babies?

            • apfelwoiSchoppen@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 months ago

              Yeah, I am all for criticizing capitalism but ffs that’s not the problem here. It is not as if the US is the only place that puberty blockers are used. Other industrialized countries with universal healthcare do as well. The issue is transphobia, clear and simple.

              • Hugh_Jeggs@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                The issue is extremely well educated medical professionals disagreeing with extremely well educated medical professionals who are motivated by money

                If you think it’s simply 100% transphobia, then that’s why no professionals are asking your opinion

          • jol@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            I can’t understand why people can’t just mind their own business. Let me rise my children according to what science says, not what your feelings say. What parents want is to keep their children safe, and puberty blockers helps these children avoid hardships later in life.

              • jol@discuss.tchncs.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                5 months ago

                Yes, I can. But this law is the opposite of caring about others. You’re just able to twist anything and disguise it as empathy “for the children” and couldn’t care the least what the children actually want.

              • FinnFooted@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                If they actually cared, they would take the time to understand the actual situation and realize that puberty blockers aren’t experimental or dangerous.

              • Hugh_Jeggs@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                You’re missing the fact that you could easily replace “science” in their comment with “Facebook”, because those are the “scientists” they’re referring to

          • Cethin@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            Being apprehensive about something you don’t understand is perfectly acceptable and understandable. Taking away people’s choice to make an informed decision for themselves with their doctor because of the apprehension is not acceptable (or it shouldn’t be at least).

            Every medical procedure has consequences, as does the forgoing of such procedure. The decision should be left for each individual to decide for themselves, not a government making medical decisions for all people while being ignorant of their situation.

              • bc93@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                Uh… you realise this article is about the UK, right? Hospitals and doctors are pretty universally part of the National Health Service, it’s not really about money.

                I’m also 100% in favour of anarchy though so I don’t know if there’s any point in discussing anything further with you.

              • Cethin@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                5 months ago

                As an anarchist, yeah that’d pretty much be anarchy.

                We couldn’t have people make decisions for themselves I guess! We have to make sure those rich elites in control of the government are there to protect us from our total stupidity. /s

                Of course there need to be regulations. The procedure needs to be tested to be safe on humans (which it has, to a higher degree than many other medicines), and the parents/guardians would need to reach a decision with their child and with a licensed medical professional.

                Government officials aren’t licensed medical professionals. They shouldn’t be making that decision. They should lay out the groundwork for licensing and medical testing and leave the actual results and decisions to the professionals and the patients.

      • otp@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        I mean there’s having a discussion and then there’s just dishonest refusal to even acknowledge an opposing view.

        Lol what does “having a discussion” look like to you? Maybe asking questions like “Why…?”, literally presenting an opportunity for someone to answer the question? Because maybe you need to re-read my initial comment.

        You can’t fathom a reason people might be concerned about children being given non-medicinal drugs that block puberty?

        Puberty blockers are being offered in a medical context, generally after extensive work with the patient. These aren’t hormones being bought over the dark web and taken (or administered) in secret.

        There’s also a difference between being “concerned” (which the Doctors ARE…hence why these aren’t over-the-counter substances), and wanting it made illegal.

    • Jojo, Lady of the West@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Trans-exclusionary radical feminist.

      They generally refer to themselves as “gender-critical feminists”.

      The first part “trans-exclusionary” is pretty self-explanatory. “Radical” meaning they believe the whole system needs an overhaul, and mostly comes from the branch of feminism that TERFs/gender-criticals grew out of.

    • jeffw@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      Trans exclusionary rad fem. It’s a radical feminist that basically believes that your gender assigned at birth is fixed and cannot change

      • feedum_sneedson@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Not quite - they believe gender is a social construct, to the point that it literally doesn’t exist, and the material reality of your biological sex is all there is. Historically, sociology followed biology, and sexual dimorphism is therefore the root of inequality between the sexes (particularly the fact that only females bear children). It’s a compelling argument, particularly to a Marxist.

        People can dress how they want though, none of my business.

  • katy ✨@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    banning puberty blockers for trans kids but allowing cis kids (who have been using them for like four decades without harm) on the start of pride is pretty absurd.

    it also shows that it’s not actually about protecting kids but about impose section 28.

    • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Correct me if I’m wrong, but the only reason I know of for cis kids to use puberty blockers is as a measure against the condition precocious puberty, which basically means the body is going into puberty too soon.

      If that’s correct, then this isn’t really a good argument, because using drugs to delay premature puberty until its ‘normal time’ is very different from delaying ‘normal time’ puberty to a future ‘late time’–the latter moves the body into an abnormal state, while the former movies out out of one.

      Isn’t that kind of like arguing that because we’ve been using blood thinners successfully for a long time (leaving out that it’s used primary on people who are prone to blood clots to treat that condition), that there’s definitely no harm in prescribing blood thinners to people with regular blood?

      • katy ✨@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        for cis kids they would take them to delay puberty until a time in the future at which point they come off the blockers and everything works fine, which defeats the main terf talking point of “irreversible changes” or being dangerous to children.

        the only difference is that trans children would take them only until they can start taking hormones.

        • Seleni@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Oh, don’t worry; they definitely want to ban them for cis kids too (or at least girls). The one thing Conservatives the world over have in common is they like their women young.