Whether or not that is a thing depends on where you are.

The most common type of surgery is breast. In the USA, double mastectomies on children are legal, and have been performed on patients as young as 13. As for gender dysphoria itself, according to some surveys the frequency of teenage biological girls diagnosed with the disorder has risen by a factor of 40 in recent years.

For sources on both of those facts, as well as more background on this topic, I recommend https://www.webmd.com/children/news/20210427/transition-ther....

The article cited nothing for the former claim. An unspecified survey for the latter.

It seemed to imply the 40x increase was in rapid onset gender dysphoria. But ROGD isn't a recognized diagnosis even now. Never mind 2006. A single researcher published a single paper proposing it in 2018. They relied on the assumption teenagers tell their parents everything. And they selected for parents who refused to accept their children coming out as trans.[1]

The article also claimed 100% of a small study population proceeding to transition after puberty blockers contradicts the claim puberty blockers give children more time to decide before transitioning. But doctors don't hand out puberty blockers randomly of course.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnc_KvWkiHw&t=3324s

Are the majority of child double mastectomies done for gender affirmation reasons?

I knew several women in college who had the procedure done before college to avoid familial cancer risk or back problems.

Please note that that's an opinion article, not an academic source.

It's borderline misleading to say that mastectomies "happen", and then link it with an unrelated number for diagnoses of gender dysphoria.

It's also misleading to represent the growth of a tiny number relatively. A few dozen cases grew to a few hundred. That's completely normal and what happens with any novel diagnosis that was barely accepted even just 10 years ago.

Note that there's comparatively little benefit to puberty blockers in F2M cases, because other than the obvious case of breasts, most secondary sex characteristics, even post puberty, can be radically altered by taking male hormones. So you get very little benefit, but the risk side is a lot less clear. For the same reason, most F2M's will be better off delaying both hormonal and surgical transition until well after puberty and perhaps into middle-age, when desistance rates do get very low.

The situation re: M2F is genuinely more challenging, and one has to balance a variety of factors pushing for earlier, not just later intervention.

> Certain factions who would prefer trans people cease to exist

I don't think this is fair. When we're talking about people this young, concerns about later desistance are very real. Expressing such concerns is in no way equal to preferring that these people "cease to exist".

Middle age means over 40 commonly. Is that what you meant?

Mastectomies leave scars and can have complications. And you seem to ignore the psychological and social aspects of going through opposite gender puberty.

There are concerns about erroneous transitions. There also substanctial factions who loudly proclaim their preference that trans people (and homosexual) do not exist, and openly justify their claims with centuries-old supernatural myths.

We've just had a barely unsuccessful attempt (the social democrats were in favor, but didn't want to end their coalition with the christian democrats) of legislation in Germany which included allowing gender reassignment surgery without parental consent from the age of 14.

After psychological counselling, not just on a child's whim, but still.

We've had exactly your point in the public discourse: "that's FUD, no surgery for minors is planned", but the wording in the draft law was clear, and proponents were unwilling to get rid of it, even though it would have made the law's passage much, much more likely.

Sometimes people push bills like this to make their opponents look like fools, though maybe that's not as common in the EU. Movements are infiltrated all the time. I don't know the details of that bill (much less the name or backers), so I can't really comment.

What I do know is there's tons more bills trying (sometimes successfully) to block consenting adults and older kids with parental permission from even basic stuff like counseling or blockers. That seems way more dangerous than the fraction of a percent of kids who change their mind later being able to go through with a transition they'll regret.

> The only thing kids can go on are puberty blockers.

They can also go on testosterone injections here in the UK, not sure about US.

16 according to the NHS.[1] It's the same in the US.

[1] https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/treatment/

>> and well-meaning attempts at gender reassignment surgery for them will backfire

> The only thing kids can go on are puberty blockers.

So instead of specifying gender reassignment surgery, they should have something more broad, like well-meaning medical interventions. It seems like the heart of their statement is true and that these medical interventions on children can backfire.

This is just false. I personally know people in the states that make it false, and other evidence is very easily accessible.

Which states; or rather, how many? There are fifty of them.