First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Post Reply 9yo comes out as trans after seeing man in dress on TV
4780 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 20 days ago , edited 20 days ago

Amyas_Leigh wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:


that we know leads to side effects that can be life threatening.



Oh so side effects have to be life threatening to matter. K den

Stunted growth, infertility and mental illness are just nothing I guess.
I don't get your defense of pumping kids full of hormone blockers to stunt their growth...
Something only pedos and freaks would wish on a child.


Hey, remember that link you sent?


...effects are 100 percent reversible if patients change their minds.


Why do you even use a citation to support your argument if you don't even listen to it yourself?
4780 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 20 days ago , edited 20 days ago

Amyas_Leigh wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:


But puberty blockers have not been observed to have any damaging side effects, really any side effect we know of at this point j


Willful ignorance?

hot flashes, decreased sexual desire, loss of bone density and increased fracture risk (osteoporosis), erectile dysfunction, fatigue, increased risk of diabetes and heart attacks/strokes, weight gain, decreased muscle mass, anemia, and memory loss. Cholesterol, especially the LDL cholesterol, tends to rise, and muscle tends to get replaced by fat.


The only willful ignorance here is from the man who cites side effects to hormone replacement therapy as side effects to puberty blockers. I'd say nice try, but... it really isn't.
Posted 20 days ago
How ironic, coming from someone who supports human experimentation. Children should not be subjected to frankenstien experiments because their parents are good progressive citizens
35982 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Georgia, USA
Offline
Posted 20 days ago

octorockandroll wrote:


Hey, remember that link you sent?


...effects are 100 percent reversible if patients change their minds.


Why do you even use a citation to support your argument if you don't even listen to it yourself?


But I thought that link was outdated and had too small of a sample size in the study?!?!?

Not to mention the list of side effects comes from a completely different article on a different website...
22653 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 20 days ago , edited 20 days ago

octorockandroll wrote:

But puberty blockers have not been observed to have any damaging side effects, really any side effect we know of at this point just stems from the fact that you aren't going through puberty. While that may not be ideal, I have not found any cases in which puberty blockers were directly responsible for anything bad happening to a patient, and they can be reversed by simply stopping the patient's intake. What Amyas_Leigh says about it being human experimentation is true, the same can be said for any new treatment. Physicians and pharmacists take part in human experimentation all the time, it's not a big deal at all.


There's a severe lack of research. The clinical demand for it has outpaced science--by a lot. There are still an endless supply of questions regarding the short and long term consequences of these treatments during critical developmental years. It's a major cause for concern. The science community has kicked off large studies and research on the topic in an attempt to catch up--but the medical community is not waiting due to the demand.

Most of these children are not only guinea pigs for the parents--but for the medical community as well. More than they should be.



I'm all for more research on the subject--but the lack of caution right now is deeply concerning. It is quite abusive at this stage of knowledge--or rather, lack thereof.
4780 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 20 days ago , edited 20 days ago

Amyas_Leigh wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:


Hey, remember that link you sent?


...effects are 100 percent reversible if patients change their minds.


Why do you even use a citation to support your argument if you don't even listen to it yourself?


But I thought that link was outdated and had too small of a sample size in the study?!?!?

Not to mention the list of side effects comes from a completely different article on a different website...


...what? That link wasn't even a study. Did you even read the thing you linked to?
17879 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
52 / M / In
Offline
Posted 20 days ago , edited 20 days ago

Amyas_Leigh wrote:


uncletim wrote:

More power to him I bet he looks fabulous


52 year old supporting pumping kids full of hormone blockers...
Very telling


Yep says you have zero idea of what humor is

4780 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 20 days ago

PrinceJudar wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:

But puberty blockers have not been observed to have any damaging side effects, really any side effect we know of at this point just stems from the fact that you aren't going through puberty. While that may not be ideal, I have not found any cases in which puberty blockers were directly responsible for anything bad happening to a patient, and they can be reversed by simply stopping the patient's intake. What Amyas_Leigh says about it being human experimentation is true, the same can be said for any new treatment. Physicians and pharmacists take part in human experimentation all the time, it's not a big deal at all.


There's a severe lack of research. The clinical demand for it has outpaced science--by a lot. There are still an endless supply of questions regarding the short and long term consequences of these treatments during critical developmental years. It's a major cause for concern. The science community has kicked off large studies and research on the topic in an attempt to catch up--but the medical community is not waiting due to the demand.

Most of these children are not only guinea pigs for the parents--but for the medical community as well. More than they should be.



I'm all for more research on the subject--but the lack of caution right now is deeply concerning. It is quite abusive at this stage of knowledge--or rather, lack thereof.


I disagree, children on puberty blockers are closely observed during the time on blockers and seeing as we really don't have any bad side effects reported, I would say it's a safe bet these things are fine.

I agree about the research part, somewhat, mind you.
3376 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / In a Yaoi Fanfic
Offline
Posted 20 days ago
The kid should probably wait until they're older to make a decision, but eh. In the meantime I'm sure they can just dress however they want for now.

Maybe it's one of those things you can notice at a young age, but I'm not entirely sure.

Either way, making such a decision at age 9 is a bit too early.
35982 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Georgia, USA
Offline
Posted 20 days ago

octorockandroll wrote:



and seeing as we really don't have any bad side effects reported


Wait a decade or two for these kids to grow up.

See how many become functioning members of society
4780 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 20 days ago

Amyas_Leigh wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:



and seeing as we really don't have any bad side effects reported


Wait a decade or two for these kids to grow up.

See how many become functioning members of society


Sure.
22653 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 20 days ago

octorockandroll wrote:
I disagree, children on puberty blockers are closely observed during the time on blockers and seeing as we really don't have any bad side effects reported, I would say it's a safe bet these things are fine.

I agree about the research part, somewhat, mind you.

Observable short term effects and neurodevelopmental/endocrinological long term effects are two vastly different matters. The latter we barely know much of which is why they have yet to be approved.

Our bodies are at a critical stage during the development years--perhaps take it from someone with a few diagnosed developmental disorders.

There's little knowledge as to what irreversible and undesirable effects such treatment incurs....yet.

Sex hormones and our biological development are too intricately linked at these stages to be messed with so...hazardously.

4780 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 20 days ago

PrinceJudar wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:
I disagree, children on puberty blockers are closely observed during the time on blockers and seeing as we really don't have any bad side effects reported, I would say it's a safe bet these things are fine.

I agree about the research part, somewhat, mind you.

Observable short term effects and neurodevelopmental/endocrinological long term effects are two vastly different matters. The latter we barely know much of which is why they have yet to be approved.

Our bodies are at a critical stage during the development years--perhaps take it from someone with a few diagnosed developmental disorders.

There's little knowledge as to what irreversible and undesirable effects such treatment incurs....yet.

Sex hormones and our biological development are too intricately linked at these stages to be messed with so...hazardously.



There have been long term observations of puberty blocker patients who were fine though (at least if 16 years is considered long term) but yeah, I agree more studies are needed, but with the support of so much of the medical community and the previously mentioned long term observations I think we can agree that there probably won't be too much damage.
22653 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 20 days ago

octorockandroll wrote:
There have been long term observations of puberty blocker patients who were fine though (at least if 16 years is considered long term) but yeah, I agree more studies are needed, but with the support of so much of the medical community and the previously mentioned long term observations I think we can agree that there probably won't be too much damage.


Given what I know about neuorodevelopment, I wouldn't be so sure. Regardless, it shouldn't be something they perform on children until more is known about it. The medical community is meeting clinical demands right now rather than working in the patient's best interest (what is in their best interest is unknown, but they know what the patient (rather parents') want).

Gets It.
24735 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / Raleigh, North Ca...
Online
Posted 20 days ago , edited 20 days ago
Okay, so I'm kind of jumping into this halfway through the conversation - so I'll respond to the original post first.

Amyas_Leigh:
You're going to have to find a slightly better source than Daily Mail/The Sun.As someone who had lived in London, England for six years, I can tell you that they're both considered tabloid news outlets. However, for the sake of discussion, I'll assume that there's an inkling of truth in the article.

Nowadays, science is catching up with the "social logic" behind transgenderism (sources: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23230954-600-transgender-people-have-different-brain-activity-when-touched/ and https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20032-transsexual-differences-caught-on-brain-scan/). If you have a Springer Link account, I can most likely link you to various other research papers that are similar in nature, but NewScientist is the easiest to link to (and, due to the price, I assume more people have access to it). Science is starting to determine that the brain is wired to be "transgendered" in the sense that it assumes it's the opposite gender. The signs of this are starting to be noticeable in children as young as two years of age. That being said, it's not impossible for a six or nine or twelve-year-old child to feel "at odds" with the gender that they have at birth.

The difference between several decades ago and now is that there's much more social presence that tries to allow people to be who they believe themselves to be. I know you'd argue that it's "transgender propaganda", which it may be (to a degree), but it's impossible to ignore that there is a biological aspect to it that we've not quite yet discovered. We are only just beginning to explore this on a neurological level, in ways that the brain identifies as the "wrong" gender.

Now, before you try to rebuttal this with Dr. Paul McHugh's rhetoric, keep in mind that he's been "biased right" for quite a while now. If you read some of his books and the research paper on the subject, he says nothing that isn't aware to those who are (or, in your mind, "identifies as") transgendered. His two main points in his most recent literature indicate the following logic:

"Being transgendered constitutes a mental disorder in two aspects. The first is that the idea of sex misalignment is simply mistaken (it does not correspond with physical reality). The second is that it can lead to grim psychological outcomes."

Someone who is transgendered knows that it does not correspond with physical reality and this is why there are "grim psychological outcomes" from this misunderstood perception between mind and body (see earlier linked article). McHugh ignores the neurological component in his studies because he isn't qualified to perform a diagnosis on that level. I wouldn't be too surprised to see that there's a rise in transgendered youth; only for us to investigate much later what the actual cause behind this rise would be. I don't mean on a "social propaganda" level but on a level that could be similar to how premature children have been more common due to a rise of genetic defects from those who smoked tobacco or did other drugs during pregnancy. Or is it merely the brain's development behaving differently based on the growth of the child while in the womb altogether?

----------------
Current Topic in the Thread: "Puberty Blockers"

They were originally designed for those who had genetic disorders that require blocking of puberty for health reasons. To say that it has no side effects is a bit presumptuous because, let us be real here, what medicine does not have any side effects listed? As with any type of medication, we won't know the overall damage it's done to the individual for decades to come. Case studies shown so far (in this thread and in the science community as a whole) on puberty blockers have been ... abysmal, at best. The problem therein lies with the fact that case studies are difficult to gather because of social and ethical reasons. Parents are currently "okay" with their child doing as they please; which, to a degree, is fine - but, to this degree, it can be disastrous to the child and/or their health.

This isn't me stating that they shouldn't be permitted to give their children "puberty blockers". I do believe, however, that there should be a more stringent policy about what can or cannot be done to a child without constant observation. Doctors are legally obligated to monitor certain vitals when prescribing specific drugs to both adults and children, to ensure that the medication isn't causing life-threatening side effects (liver damage, kidney damage, etc). Developmental damage, DNA mutation, and so forth should also be applied to the category of "needing frequent monitoring from a healthcare professional". This would/should also include anything that deliberately stunts a person's development for the sakes of sexual identity.

I'm not against children being labeled as transgendered; only because the science is starting to align with that logic. I'm against allowing it to progress to a stage where there isn't frequent monitoring to ensure that it's not causing other side effects for the child/teenager on a long-term scale. The body doesn't necessarily like the idea of medicine telling it what it can/can not do; it attempts to "correct" this in some way or another (talk to a woman who takes birth control, for example, there are common side effects that they simply put up with because they naturally come with taking such medication).

----------------
Edit: Added another source, fixed a few grammatic errors.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.