That's a lot bs to try and bend reality.... Can't really explain your delusion? Just make a term for it and call it a day.... There are two genders, end of story....
Interesting. See also: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/ For many years, scientists believed that female development was the default programme, and that male development was actively switched on by the presence of a particular gene on the Y chromosome. In 1990, researchers made headlines when they uncovered the identity of this gene, which they called SRY. Just by itself, this gene can switch the gonad from ovarian to testicular development. For example, XX individuals who carry a fragment of the Y chromosome that contains SRY develop as males. By the turn of the millennium, however, the idea of femaleness being a passive default option had been toppled by the discovery of genes that actively promote ovarian development and suppress the testicular programme—such as one called WNT4. XY individuals with extra copies of this gene can develop atypical genitals and gonads, and a rudimentary uterus and Fallopian tubes. In 2011, researchers showed that if another key ovarian gene, RSPO1, is not working normally, it causes XX people to develop an ovotestis—a gonad with areas of both ovarian and testicular development. These discoveries have pointed to a complex process of sex determination, in which the identity of the gonad emerges from a contest between two opposing networks of gene activity. Changes in the activity or amounts of molecules (such as WNT4) in the networks can tip the balance towards or away from the sex seemingly spelled out by the chromosomes. “It has been, in a sense, a philosophical change in our way of looking at sex; that it's a balance,” says Eric Vilain, a clinician and the director of the Center for Gender-Based Biology at the University of California, Los Angeles. “It's more of a systems-biology view of the world of sex.”
Yes, if your balls don't drop during age of puberty or ever, maybe your hormones are wack or it's there but your body isn't processing it. Kids can get type I diabetes. Somehow sexual stunting through hormonal defects is more shocking and verboten. It's more tragic, to say the least. People learn this in bio. Not all the details deal with men and women, but stuff like gene failures or hormonal defects are numerous enough to research. Plus it's "less political" when cases are based off mammals or amphibians. A joke I remember teachers made is that lanky, flat chested super models could be easy candidates for XXY (or the Jamie Lee Curtis rumor). The earth is a diverse and amazing planet. It is more natural for 2-5% not fall under a male or female distinction than everything sorting out "as planned." Please read a book or two rather than supporting causes that ban the most current knowledge out there.
These surgeries aren't "gender-affirming", they are meant to change the outward appearance in contrast to the actual biological sex (which cannot be changed). This deceitfully positive framing through terminology should stop. These are pretty bloody, irreversible, massive surgical interventions. That's all ok if someone of legal age decides to do it to their own body, I am not judging them in any way. I respect their suffering and their decision. But at least call it what it is. It's not "gender-affirming", if anything, it's the opposite.
What gender affirming care was Vanderbilt doing explicitly? Hint if you read articles instead of clickbait headlines, you can answer this but this takes effort and intellectual curiosity.
I think it is "gender-affirming" in that it affirms the gender identity of the patient as a means to alleviate their dysphoria. It's hard for us to relate to it, but maybe this can help: Imagine you were transforming into a woman while your gender identity remains male. "Gender-affirming care" in that situation would be a medical intervention to slow down, stop, or reverse that transformation in order alleviate the dysphoria that results from such a transformation. If someone comes to you and says "That transformation is natural, we won't allow you to stop to it. Gender identity isn't real anyway, crazy person." -- how would you take it? You may say this is not a realistic scenario, but the point is to just imagine what a person who's going through this would be feeling.
I don't even think you have to use your imagination by going so far as to imagine wanting to surgically change your genitals. If you've ever taken steroids before, diet pills, dye the gray out of your hair, dye your hair in general, wear any of those male figure tightening vests to make you appear slimmer, choose clothing that is tailor fitted to accentuate the parts of your body you prefer are noticed over parts of your body you don't want noticed, wear your t-shirt when you go swimming in public because of insecurity over your body, take dick enhancing pills because you fear your pecker is inadequate, wear a toupee or a wig, have gotten any cosmetic surgery on your face or your body, gotten tattoos, gotten piercings, take Rogaine or other hair restoration medications, are middled aged and do TRT or do anything whatsoever that could be considered unnatural beyond your body's own production as it goes through the various stages of it's life cycle and it makes you feel inadequate not making changes to it, then I'd honestly think you could relate to a trans person in some aspect. There is some part of you, that you're not happy with, and you, through whatever means that are available to you, with your own funds, you do whatever procedure to remedy the thing that makes you insecure. By doing that thing, in theory, you've gained a peace of mind over the thing about yourself you're insecure over and feel better for it having addressed that insecurity. Isn't that the purpose of these treatments for trans people? To help someone feel more comfortable in their own body so that they gain a peace of mind they otherwise wouldn't have without some sort of medical intervention.
I understand your viewpoint and I also empathize with the struggle the affected individual is going through. As a general observation, I just see a lot of framing of terms in a politically desired direction. Objectively, the intervention is targeted at changing the gender appearance. Subjectively, as you say, it could be seen as affirming the self-perceived gender. I don't think of these people as crazy. It's not on me to judge them. I respect their decision. My only point is, since drug intervention is only partially reversible and surgical intervention is not reversible, I don't think these procedures should be done on minors. I understand the opposite viewpoint. There are pros and cons.
I have the same concerns with regards to irreversibility, but ultimately where I land is that this is not my call. The people who know the patient best and are mostly likely to have the patient's best interests in mind is not the public at large. It's the patient's family and health care team. It should be their decision.
This is where the heart of the disgustingness is. Because the people who are most obsessed with this topic and claim the most they are trying to save children also believe the people you referred to have some conspiratorial hidden agenda to turn the population transgender rather than you know.... Just having sincere care for the child. That's the most disgusting part. Attributing nefarious intent to people who just want to help.
Again, I understand and respect your point of view. My view is that with regard to some things, children need to be protected even from their own parents' decisions. I think it should be ok to have different viewpoints on that, without people getting all fanatical and hateful against someone who disagrees with them.
That all began from you sharing social media content that frames those healthcare professionals who actually are involved in these kids lives as having secret nefarious agendas.
