A boy or girl dinosaur is the question.

trans dinasour ? /s

Dinoself

Dinothey

I won’t pretend to understand what do people actually feel who really really need that, because I’m not one of them.

But I don’t get how one can justify enabling a person to to switch their gender before the age of consent, or driving license, drinking or voting thresholds. I mean, at least you can stop drinking or voting if you don’t like it, and the age thresholds for those activities are a bit higher than the age of 9.

> But I don’t get how one can justify enabling a person to to switch their gender before the age of consent

IF we didn’t impose gender before the age of consent, there’d be no reason for anyone to switch one before such an age.

OTOH, any logic that can justify the imposition can justify the change.

I’m thinking more along the lines of irreversibility. Reminded me of this recent post here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34753240

> I’m thinking more along the lines of irreversibility.

Puberty blockers are not, generally, irreversible (or even permanent-but-reversible, simply stopping taking them usually results in puberty), a fact widely recognized and documented in coverage of their use in delaying precocious puberty, long before ideological activists started attacking them based on a mix of anecdote and fiction because they were also used in treatment of trans kids.

That’s true however with the caveat that the treatment duration is often far shorter than with misgendered individuals.

The reality is that there are no long term studies on puberty blockers since in most used cases they are used as an intervention until the underlying medical condition can be resolved including in precocious puberty.

The fact that individuals can be on them for years or even a decade without any significant long term or permanent side effects also isn’t supported by evidence.

I'm not really deep into the topic, so this may be wrong/inaccurate - but I've read that puberty blockers were actually introduced as a way to solve the problem of children having to make life-changing decisions.

A successful HRT becomes much harder after puberty. On the other hand, performing HRT on children is plain unethical, for all the reasons discussed in the rest of this thread. (And btw something the trans community is advocating against - because forced sex reassignment had been standard practice for intersex children for decades. The trans community is demanding to end this practice.)

So to solve this, the idea was to artificially postpone puberty until the person is old enough that they can make a mature, informed decision about the subject.

Of course that logic has its own weak points - e.g. that puberty itself may play a major role in the person finding their identity. So postponing it until the person has settled into an identity would be sort of like trying to outrun your shadow. I'm not sure what the status of science in that regard is though.

I’m not entirely sure that logic works, they aren’t trying to change their “gender” but primarily wanting to change their sex to the best of our current medical ability.

Not quite, they want to change societies perception of themselves and medically transitioning helps that's by changing certain physical traits often used by society/people to guess which sex they are and thus change what societal expectations are placed on their appearance, behavior, and personality. This is called 'passing'.

There's also no drugs approved by the MHRA (the UK FDA equivalent) as "puberty blockers" it's purely off label use of cancer drugs.

What you've done right here is a prime example of rhetoric (whether you realize that or not).

You neither specify what drugs are being allegedly used off label (with nothing to back that claim up either) and suggest they are cancer drugs to invoke fear. Most people when they hear/read "cancer drugs" think chemotherapy drugs (which are very serious business) but not all cancer drugs are chemotherapy drugs.

Since I don't know what drugs you are actually referring to, let's talk a cancer drug (but not a chemotherapy drug) that could be used as a puberty blocker:

Tamoxifen (Brand name Nolvadex) - Used to treat breast cancer.

Note: I have no idea if tamoxifen is used as a puberty blocker, nor do I care to determine that it is. The point I am trying to make is just because something is a "cancer drug" does not mean that it can't be used for other things safely and rationally.

Why is it used to treat breast cancer?

Because it blocks estrogen receptors.

Why is blocking estrogen receptors helpful for treating breast cancer?

Certain types of breast cancer (not all types - cancers, even of within a single type, are not a monolithic disease but actually a constellation of genetically distinct diseases with some commonalities) - ER+ breast cancers in particular - evolve to hijack the hormonal system (primarily estrogen) in aiding its growth and multiplication.

Thus, blocking the cancer's ability to bind to estrogen molecules slows and can stop the growth of breast cancer cells.

Are there side effects to Tamoxifen? Of course, there are (find me a drug that doesn't have side effects): hot flashes vaginal discharge nausea mood swings fatigue depression hair thinning constipation loss of libido dry skin

These side effects are very similar to the signs of menopause because tamoxifen is essentially causing a reversible menopause in those whose bodies have become accustomed to estrogen.

Once more, the point I am trying to make here is not that Tamoxifen, a "cancer drug", can, should or is used as a puberty blocker but that cancer drugs can very plausibly be used for other things.

See breastcancer.org for a concise explanation: [1] https://www.breastcancer.org/treatment/hormonal-therapy/tamo...

See Tamoxifen evolution for a much more technical discussion: [2] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41416-023-02158-5#Sec8

For those paying attention you will invariably also see someone compare puberty blockers to the drugs used to "chemically castrate" sex offenders. This is the exact same rhetorical device and also leverages a very shallow understanding of how the drugs themselves actually work.

I understand that cancer drugs can be used for other things. That makes perfect sense to me. But we are not talking about using cancer drugs for things other than cancer in general, we're talking about using them as puberty blockers.

The use of estrogen-blocking drugs as puberty blockers is not a good idea just because estrogen blocking drugs exist. They were not originally intended for that.

> They were not originally intended for that.

Why is this important? Lots of things find use outside their original purpose. Intent doesn't really matter over function.

To be clear, I was not saying or imply GnRH agonists are estrogen blockers. Or making any claims about GnRH, it's uses or history of use. Or saying tamoxifen would be a good for use a puberty blocker.

I was simply making the point that a drugs origin does not automatically imply something about the safety or the plausibility of it's use in other areas.

I in fact agree with everything rhinoceraptor has said about puberty blockers. It's not new or anything to be panicked about.

This non-issue is be used extremely transparently to stoke a "won't you think of the children" moral panic where trans people and trans kids are being made the punching bags. I'm old enough to remember when essentially all the same talking points were being used to drum up a moral panics about gay/lesbian folks. (I'm not even that old)

That is why I called it rhetoric. I believe the poster I was responding to (RobotToaster) and it seems JoeyBananas are attempting to conflate puberty blockers (and if you read between the lines: trans people) with cancer. It's purpose is not to convey information but to inspire feelings, feelings of fear and unease.

Of course I can't know the posters hearts and I have met folks who genuinely didn't understand the litany of dog whistles and red flags they were shooting off.

It very lame to see yet another well known person (ŽIžek) jump in on it.

It suggests using these drugs as puberty blockers is a "wildcat" application that is not widely accepted

You need to substantiate your claim that off label use is even occuring. But before you get to that:

"These drugs" - what drugs? You've not even demonstrated that you know what drugs are being used as puberty blockers in the UK.

GnRH agonists are not estrogen blockers. And they have decades of history in use for children as puberty blockers, for reasons that have nothing to do with gender, early puberty.

Trans people have a keen idea of their gender identity from a very early age. If it is a human rights violation to force an adult to live opposite their innate gender identity, surely it's a human rights violation to do the same to a child.

The question isn't do trans children really know their gender identity. It's can the person responsible for allowing the transition to happen distinguish whether the child knows they're gender identity doesn't match their sex, or is it just a child being a child. Going through puberty isn't weird just for trans people.

The issue is with regards to false positives.

Parents have legal guardianship over children not because they 100% of the time know the correct decision, but as a compromise between children literally just coming into the world and knowing nothing, and not handing complete self autonomy over to the state.

Neither are human rights violations.

> When I was 9 I thought I was a dinosaur.

This undersells how sinister underage hormone blockers are, because being a dinosaur is not a normal part of human development. identity confusion, especially during puberty, is normal for a significant percentage of people - millions.

Doctors administrating these blockers cross well past malpractice and into evil. If you are permanently altering children - the people we don't let buy cigarettes or alcohol, vote, or drive - without years of therapy first, you deserve jail time.

@dang

Let's see this same energy for circumcision then