This is a very disingenuous take. "If You Disagree With Me, You Want People To Die" is also not the best way to signal your openness to an honest debate.

> The truth is, hormone therapy saves lives. Some of those lives will be teenage lives.

The truth is - the current research about that is lacking, we know that there are serious (and good faith) arguments against claiming that puberty blockers are reversible, and we know that many clinics simply don't collect data about people post transition or distort whatever data they do collect:

"For those late to this: In April I published a very long post laying out the severe flaws in a study about puberty blockers and hormones University of Washington researchers published in JAMA Network Open, and how they exaggerated the results when describing them to the media and to UW’s own PR apparatus. The very short version is that the study has so many flaws that it does not provide us with any evidence whatsoever supporting the idea that kids who went on gender-affirming medicine (GAM) experienced beneficial outcomes relative to the kids who did not.

In fact, any genuine comparison between the GAM and no-GAM kids 12 months out is impossible, because 80% of the kids who didn’t go on GAM had dropped out of study by the final wave of data collection, leaving just six remaining. That is far too small a sample to draw any conclusions from. (The paper gave no explanation as to why some kids went on GAM and others didn’t, making it impossible to know whether this was an otherwise apples-to-apples comparison, so even in the absence of this attrition issue, the results would have been difficult to interpret.)"

https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/the-university-of-washing... https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/a-swedish-investigative-j...

One thing that sticks in my mind about this issue is the implicit blackmail. "Your kid will kill themselves if you don't do X!" is a jarring and terrifying framework for any parent to deal with, but I'm not aware of it existing anywhere in healthcare except in trans issues.

Consider for example if my teenager told me they'd kill themselves if they're not allowed to watch TV. MAYBE unlimited TV is the only way to ensure they don't carry out their threat, but if so this only reveals a deeply dysfunctional mindset that should be further investigated.

This inquiry seems to be completely missing from the trans discourse as far as I can tell. I find it genuinely alarming how little curiosity there is from the trans-affirming side as to what exactly causes someone to be feel dysphoria. The inquiry almost doesn't seem to matter, with the prognosis basically taking the form of "don't worry about why, just make sure they get cutting-edge plastic surgery and experimental hormonal treatments or else they'll kill themselves."

The current state of "gender affirming care" seems like a band-aid solution that papers over a much deeper problem, and I don't understand how we are helping trans people by turning a blind eye to the root cause of their suffering.

> 80% of the kids who didn’t go on GAM had dropped out of study

I know we literally don’t know the specific reasons why they dropped out, as they are lost to followup, but is it plausible that they dropped out while remaining dysphoric? The rate would be in-line with previous studies of desistance rates.

"The current state of "gender affirming care" seems like a band-aid solution that papers over a much deeper problem, and I don't understand how we are helping trans people by turning a blind eye to the root cause of their suffering."

Are you saying the cause of their suffering isn't being forced to live in a body/identity contrary to how they feel?

Your first point is disingenuous. HRT for trans people does save lives. Whether its blockers in minors, or HRT to help with fat redistribution, secondary sexual characteristics, etc. in informed and consenting adults, it goes a long way to helping trans people live as themselves -- indeed, many trans people report feeling significantly better just from taking it, describing it as if their bodies were running on the "wrong fuel" beforehand.

Have you considered that data isn't gathered post-transition because trans people are simply going about and living their lives successfully? Assuming they've transitioned and their HRT regiment (if they have one) is stable, there is no clinical need to continue "collecting data" afterwards -- especially when this is done by services which are chronically underfunded as it is.

As for the distorted data claim, please show evidence of deliberate distortion -- it's not the fault of those doing studies if subjects drop out of their own accord, and certainly doesn't mean they "distort whatever data they do collect."

Another boogeyman, doctors aren't running around telling parents their kids will kill themselves without puberty blockers. Certainly if a doctor were to bring up a feeling of suicidality within a child, it would be within the context of sufficient psychological assessment, which would have to have begun with the parents or child themselves either raising trans or suicidality issues previously. If that claim were made by a medical professional, it wouldn't be out of nowhere, and it wouldn't be without basis.

What's actually terrifying is the idea that your child is so uncomfortable and/or unhappy that they question their ability to live their live without the intervention they need, in a day where access to those services are both drastically underfunded, and being outlawed by Conservatives in the western world.

The fact that you try and equate hypothetical feelings of suicidality with a transgender child facing the inability to access appropriate medical care, with not being allowed to watch TV, is much more of a "deeply dysfunctional mindset" than your proposed hypothetical.

Your brash and baseless claims seem to show a lack of understanding or knowledge of the "trans discourse" as you put it, and seemingly you don't actually care or want to know, since your final sentence is claiming that gender-affirming care covers a "deeper problem," which is just ignorant and attempts to deny trans existence as being valid in itself, as opposed to being a symptom of some other "much deeper problem."

Not addressed to me, but your first question seems to confuse cause and solution.

How so?

"Are you saying the cause of their suffering isn't being forced to live in a body/identity contrary to how they feel?"

That's literally pointing out the cause of suffering is being forced to live in a body/identity contrary to how they feel... which is literally the cause, rather than the "deep problems" the other commenter baselessly claimed.

I didn't mention the solution at all there, but it should be rather obvious :)

Why can't the feeling be the target of intervention instead of the body? That's what I mean by cause/solution confusion.

Why assume the feeling can be dealt with by discussion? This isn't a new concept, trans people have existed throughout history -- and a tremendous amount of gender-based research and history was destroyed by the Nazis when they burned the archives of the Institut für Sexualwissenschaf[1].

In a time where psychology was a relatively novel field[2], and homosexuality was illegal in many places, the IfS was groundbreaking, This of course ignores many historical examples of trans people[3][4] existing, who didn't have access to the same medical care (including psychological, endocrinological, and surgical) that we have today.

I'm not sure why you're confused -- you seem to be working of the basis that being transgender is some "feeling" that needs some intervention other than... allowing a trans person to exist?

The feeling is the target of intervention, and the intervention -- more frequently than not -- is transitioning. Frequently that has to begin without changes afforded by HRT or surgery, which tend to come substantially later on.

The feeling is the cause, the solution is often to exist how you feel -- so I'm unsure what you're confused about?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institut_für_Sexualwissenschaf... [2] "Psychology as a field of experimental study began in 1854 in Leipzig, Germany when Gustav Fechner created the first theory of how judgments about sensory experiences are made and how to experiment on them." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_psychology [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_history [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_transgender_histor...

The confusion most likely stems from the fact that anorectic people have existed throughout history too, yet we still treat them by addressing "the feeling" and not by liposuction.

You appear to be confusing anorectic people (those with anorexia) with anorectic drugs (appetite suppressants.)

Anorectic people (those with anorexia) frequently are underweight, and are hyper-focussed on concerns regarding weight gain, so would generally absolutely not be candidates for liposuction.

If you're referring to those who /take/ anorectics, there are plenty people (for example, those deemed clinically obese, or those whose cormorbidities necessitate weight loss) who may be given anorexic drugs -- the prevalence of such medications and liposuction, etc. is much higher than "addressing "the feeling"" as you put it.

Nah, you appear to be misreading what I wrote.

When a person with anorexia goes to the doctor and say: "Doctor, when I look in the mirror I can't stand my body, I feel too fat", the doctor doesn't say: "Here, take those pills to make your body leaner and come to me later I will remove some fat from you". He says: "Okay, let's treat the image of your body that you have in your head, as it is incorrect".

I just wonder how that differs from a person claiming to be of the opposite sex.

Nah, I read what you put. "Anorectic people" don't need liposuction. Trans people do need affirmative healthcare.

Don't make a false equivalence then. This isn't the proper forum to educate you on the psychological nuances between body dysmorphic elements of anorexia nervosa, and gender dysphoria -- suffice to say that (a) they are not remotely the same thing, and (b) trans people aren't saying they are "too fat."

They're entirely different feelings. One is concerned around the perceived appearance of one particular aspect, the other is centred in their inherent existence and integration within society and the social construct that is gender. They are not the same.

Your words, "a body/identity contrary to how they feel." Your assumption, among many, is to absolutize such a feeling as "existence." Such a person clearly exists, and suffers. It is again your assumption, and confusion, to jump to transitioning as the sole solution to that suffering.

No, I don't assume, I go on what people say and decades of study on the matter, but good job making things up again

Again, no assumption, and no "jumping" -- people have been transitioning longer than either of us have existed in this world, and the data shows by and large it is what works to actually give gender-incongruent people a safe and happy life.

Again, gender is a social construct -- but if the gender incongruence and dysphoria are such that they clealrly don't match the sex assigned at birth, transitioning does wonders for both mental health, and actual quality of life -- but keep assuming toxic nonsense, since you're clearly trying to hide your bigotry on the matter.

You've still failed to say anything remotely true in a response, or suggested any form of treatment. You go on about working on "the feeling," but if the feeling is inherent difference between identified gender and assigned sex, transition is absolutely the gold standard in treatment routes.

Go read WPATH. Talk to trans people. Look at studies. Listen to parents and family of trans children suffering in the US because of backwards, religion-fuelled laws. That is an issue for secularism, religious beliefs shouldn't be used to push denial of medical treatment to those who you disagree are deserving of said treatment.

I've pointed out logical errors in your discourse, using your own words. I haven't offered any solutions, nor attempted to. You haven't provided any redress to the errors I pointed out.

Edit: and added further errors along the way, like ascribing all kinds of things to me I haven't said nor implied.

Edit 2: let me just call it out, you called me a bigot for pointing out a logical error. Addressing the error would have been a sufficient response.

No, I called you a bigot because you're making claims about other options, while offering no alternative, and dismissing the accepted treatment.

When there's one definitive treatment option, with empirical evidence. It's not my fault you don't do your research.

Anyway, I only pointed out your own flawed reasoning, or, charitably, unproven assumptions. I gave you the opportunity to give evidence for your assumptions, and you gave none. You instead said many irrelevant things. Asking a question is not the same as promoting an alternative therapy. This should be understood by any rational person participating in a site promoting curious discourse and assuming good faith. If you want to point me to do my own research, that's your choice, although your own severe flaws still remain. Since you have up to now seemed unable to even understand what I am pointing out, let me know and I can explain them to the detail you would require to understand.

Your journey is is literally the epitome of self-governance, and yet the party that ostensibly advocates for more self-governance seems to fear you and others on that journey as the top threat to society today.

The only way that makes sense is when viewed with a cynical eye: people are spooked by "not normal", and spooked people are more easily manipulated.

It's disgusting on so many levels.

You can both say that people should be able to self-govern themselves and at the same time have a cut-off age before which they should not. The trans debate would be much less heated if it did not involve other people's children.

I have to imagine it's got to be painful and challenging as a parent to go through that. Obviously this is not to be done lightly but it seems like it's ultimately the business of the child, their doctor, and their parents.

> The trans debate would be much less heated if it did not involve other people's children.

Oh really? What about bathrooms? I hear that trans people love to go to bathrooms and molest children.

Are you referring to incidents like this: https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/4002789/morrisons-sex-...?

If so, these are rare, and aren't the main reason why most people want to keep certain spaces as sex-segregated.

Ignoring that the Sun is tabloid trash, nobody raises as many complaints when men sexually assault women or children, nor do they make the same complaints about the "risks" or "predators" when it comes to trans men -- this is specifically a boogeyman rhetoric designed to denigrate trans women.

If you're reading this, you've probably been in a bathroom with a trans person, or someone you know has, and they've been absolutely fine. Trans people by and large want to get in, pee, and get out, same as everyone else -- but perhaps moreso, given the risk of transphobic rhetoric and abuse if they were to be "clocked" (identified) as a trans person.

The primary abusers of women and children are men, followed by (cis) women. Trans women make up an exceedingly small portion of that particular criminal element, but they're vilified and used as boogeymen so much more, to attempt to deny trans women's existence under "think of the children" handwaving.

> The primary abusers of women and children are men

This is one reason why many feminists, and others, argue against transwomen sharing female-only spaces. From their point of view, a transwoman is a type of man, due to being male, and being trans isn't a sufficient mitigation.

From a criminality perspective, there are data to support this, which indicate that transwomen as a group have similar patterns of offending to other males. And, worryingly, a higher proportion of sexual offences.

On that latter point, this article by transwoman Debbie Hayton offers some insight as to why this may be: https://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/resources/prison-service-...

* trans-exclusionary feminists, you mean.

Plenty feminists are intersectional, TERFs are in the minority (and before someone claims it's a slur, a cis woman feminist came up with the term, to refer to the trans-exclusionary minority).

Trans is a descriptor, so "trans woman" is the appropriate usage, nor "transwoman" -- and those feminists aren't taking umbrage with non-binary trans people, or trans men -- only trans women... Hmm.

That aside, the link you provided is disingenuous -- the author may be trans, but they conflate sex and gender, and have often been transphobic, as have the CCJS themselves.

You don't seem to be engaging in good faith -- ignoring the "whataboutism" and ignorant terminology, you're also conflating sex with gender, and deciding that a minority justify excluding the vast majority.

Are you next going to say that only women who can bleed and bear children are women? -- because plenty of cis women can't, and that's the kind of exclusionary rhetoric that's used next.

I found Hayton's article a fascinating insight into someone who has gone through the whole process of transitioning, yet has much to critique about the modern activism on this topic, from the perspective of having lived experience and deep understanding.

Seems odd to write this off as "transphobic" given that Hayton is a transwoman. I think you just have a differing opinion, that's all.

Not really, people of color can still spout racist views, being trans doesn't preclude the ability to be transphobic.

Would you be so fascinated to read the insight of trans people who are capable of not conflating sex and gender? Hayton's whole schtick is appealing to the TERF crowd, and therefore escaping that particular line of transphobic abuse. You won't see her going into the men's room, though.

Living as a woman while claiming she's a man is her choice, but it's the hateful TERFy rhetoric that's espoused by the anti-trans organisations she surrounds herself with. Whether it's internalised transphobia or not I cannot say, but she certainly has campaigned hard against improving trans rights. The fact that she's proud of associations with right-wing, transphobic outlets like GBN and RT only serve to show how disingenuous she can be... but hey, it gets her clicks and applauds within the anti-trans crowd, which she seems to relish in.

It's not "odd" to describe something by the correct term, and claiming trans women are men is inherently transphobic, and unintelligently conflates sex with gender, when they are absolutely not the same thing. Maybe next time don't assume the thoughts or opinions of others.

Sorry but that's not a very convincing argument. Seems to me that you are painting Hayton as transphobic simply for having opinions on trans issues that you don't agree with, but that are more aligned with those of feminists.

I think Hayton's article provides a view that carefully and thoughtfully balances the needs of both women and transwomen. It's a refreshing change from the type of activism that demands all sex-segregated spaces be torn down and that sex-based rights no longer matter.

It's not my job to convince you of anything, random newcomer. Given intersectional feminism is much larger than TERFdom, you might want to consider it as "aligning with those of a minority of [so-called] feminists."

Where are those "feminists" when it comes to trans men? Oh wait, just claim they're confused lesbians, and focus on labelling every trans woman as a predator -- because that's what feminism is about, reducing women to genitals. /s

The fact that you say "both women and transwomen" shows your own disingenuousness and transphobia, both failing to recognise trans women as women, and failing to grasp the simple concept that "trans" is a descriptor, and "transwomen" isn't a thing.

Who's "demanding all sex-segregated spaced be torn down" exactly? Nobody here, and certainly not I. Neither is anyone here claiming that "sex-based rights no longer matter," but good job with the straw man and whataboutism yet again.

What's your interest in HN? You don't seem to be here with any interest in the regular topics, are you only here to espouse anti-trans views? Don't you have Mumsnet and Woman's Place for that?

> are you only here to espouse anti-trans views?

Your own account, which has public activity going back for less than a month, is almost entirely dedicated to soapboxing on trans issues.

Rather a case of the pot calling the kettle black, don't you think?

Not really -- I've been here for years, which you'll see from my account history -- I didn't just create an account to shit on trans people.

The fact that you consider defending peoples' right to exist as "soapboxing" shows how disingenuous and false you are, but that's hardly surprising.

Keep reading the Sun and picking and choosing your rare, minority examples to spout your exclusionary views -- but I'm sure you've got better places to do that than HN.

I'm only commenting on it recently because bigots have been trying to police the existence of other human beings with boogeymen and BS rhetoric. I'm not sorry for that, and I don't care about you taking umbrage with it. Be better.

So, you've used a recently resurrected account to engage on this specific issue, mostly by calling people disingenuous, transphobic bigots, in a series of long and rambling comments.

Do you believe that this approach to expressing disagreement has been effective?

Not resurrected at all, interactions aren't always public -- but keep assuming.

You're criticising intelligent and evidence-backed responses because they're not baseless one-liners? Ok sweetie... Still waiting to hear about your history on HN... oh wait, there isn't one.

Do you believe coming to HN to spout hate and rhetoric is going to win you any fans, or bolster your clique?

Given the upvotes, agreement, and having ignorant people admit when they're wrong, it's a lot more effective than the vitriol you've spouted.

Savage. Absolute destruction.

Not quite, but evidently facts aren't your strong point. Try again next time.

I've replied to both of you elsewhere (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33850484 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33850509) but you both posted so destructively in this thread that more than one reply seems appropriate.

Flamewar like this is completely against the rules and spirit of this site. We ban accounts that do this, so please don't do it again—regardless of how right you are or feel you are.

Instead, please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and use HN in the intended spirit from now on. If you can't do that or don't want to, please don't post until you can and do.

I've replied to both of you elsewhere (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33850509 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33850484) but you both posted so destructively in this thread that more than one reply seems appropriate.

Flamewar like this is completely against the rules and spirit of this site. We ban accounts that do this, so please don't do it again—regardless of how right you are or feel you are.

Instead, please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and use HN in the intended spirit from now on. If you can't do that or don't want to, please don't post until you can and do.

I can assure you that any discussion that involves other people's children is on another level of heat when compared to even the most heated debate about bathrooms.