Mastectomies from what I understand don't happen for minors unless it's something life saving live cancer. The Boston's Childrens incident that led to bomb threats was a result of conservative news outlets like Fox News spreading misinformation based on literature from Boston's Childrens that a 17 year old can start consultation for a mastectomy. That's literally what they are basing their entire narrative of "minors being castrated and having their breasts cut off" story from. Your second claim I'm assuming is pure "gut". Hormone therapy has been a treatment on minors for several issues. There is existing data and an informed doctor and mental health professionals that specializes in this have more knowledge and experience to determine whether the side effects of hormonal treatment are more or less severe than not doing anything for a child who is transgender. I think the biggest offense here is assuming these medical experts aren't doing their due diligence and taking their time in making these decisions. Instead we have conservative media telling Jimbo that a parent can walk into a clinic and say "my child is transgender" and they start lobing off penises. These doctors and mental health professionals have to spend like a year plus observing these kids before they make any decisions like hormone therapy.
I don't think so. I think your argument here is "side effects means it should not be done to minors unless more research is done" while she is saying "determining whether a treatment is useful and safe is based on whether the benefits out weight the side effects". She is also saying "and we have experts that do have intellectual curiosity in this matter who have done the research to feel safe in doing these therapies to minors". The major difference here is you assume not enough research has been done due to multiple factors I assume such as the media you consume and the fact you probably think the experts assigning these treatments are doing it form some evil bad faith reasoning where you assume they haven't "followed the science".
Wrong. Typically there are some hoops like parental consent or a doctors note but they do occur. We need to get the facts on the ground level.
How can I trust this when there were bomb threats on a hospital members of my family attends based on conservative outlets like Carlson saying that hospital performs mastectomies on minors entirely based on that hospital's literature saying they allow 17 year olds to have consultation appointments and where there is zero recorded history of any minor having that operation at that hospital? How can I trust any claims in this manner now when that happened? These were prominent conservative outlets not some Facebook meme but literally prime time programs on the most popular cable news channel.
This article is from 10 years ago, at a time when topics like this seemed to be much less culturally divisive: Sex-change treatment for kids on the rise - CBS News If an adolescent who identifies as male is developing breasts, that can be psychologically terrifying and damaging. I do think there's a strong libertarian argument to leave medical decisions for adolescents in that situation to family and doctors who actually know that person's situation the best. Not outsiders who want to dictate terms on how that young person is to develop sexually.
Do those doctors make claims about those same treatments done to minors on a regular basis outside of transition?
You can google teenage mastectomy and choose an outlet to believe? Or just keep crying about that bomb threat?
I did and I get directed to claims based on that hospital having literature saying 17 year olds are allowed to have consultation. Anyways you are the claimant here. Onus is on you. Ignore the bomb threat. I was hoping that basic level of empathy would allow you to see the harm your type of rhetoric causes but please ignore that now because I see that you are going to use that as some type of sarcastic quip. How can I trust a claim when something like a primetime show on the most popular news network in the country made claims that a specific hospital was doing mastectomies for sex change operations on children based on literature that says that 17 year olds can get consultations?
Yes I will admit it's not something I have a lot of knowledge on. I've not said hormone treatment should be banned and but said it should be approached with caution and I'm willing to bet that most doctors will say the same thing.
Why isn't there the same concern for PED use among high school athletes nationwide? So if 12% of male athletes are on gear, that'd put rough estimations of PED users among high school male athletes in the the 500,000 thousand range. If 1% that'd be 45,347ish male high school athletes on gear. If 3% of women high school athletes are on gear, that'd put them at 100,000ish range and about 17,000 if 0.5% is accurate. Given that testing isn't consistently funded on high school athletes, deliberately so by our own elected officials, it seems like hormone therapy is selectively enforced when it doesn't benefit sports programs. Now lets look at the estimation of high school transgender people in the United States. Couldn't really find nationwide data of the number of high school trans people that are on hormone therapy. Just this snip below. It seems most high school trans people wait until 18 before taking hormone therapy, either because of legislative restrictions where they live, lack of personal funds, lack of community support from friends and family or personal choice. Given that an overwhelming larger number of high school athletes take PEDs in high school sports and state legislators have deliberately opted to look the other way citing budget constraints even though the state of Texas makes up roughly $2 trillion of the economy, I find that hard to believe. And let's be real about the motivations to look the other way. You can't have professional sports if you don't have a constant influx of new star athletes emerging out of high school and the North American sports market is a very profitable industry. Whereas, I imagine, simply wanting to exist as a trans person, doesn't generate revenue. Subsequently, I view it as a fringe topic created to split apart votes against a small population of people with very little representation in positions of powers to defend them. They're easy pickings for politicians and low informed people to take pot shots at while suffering minimal repercussions for doing so. In fact, it may get you elected to a more powerful position of office.
That's the thing. Doesn't it sound like hbrus? Are we assuming that the doctors and experts who do these hormonal treatments aren't approaching it with caution? From what I've read and understood these doctors and mental health professionals spend over a year observing these kids before they make any medical decisions.
Another point of evidence that the issue here isn't kids having access to doing permeant harm but rather people just have conservative values on trananger folks and will find any excuse to demonize them. Yes if someone was sincerely more concerned with kids taking dangerous hormonal drugs willy nilly this is what would be spammed across the social medias in accounts like "libsontictok" if they actually sincerely cared about kids. No they just find trananger people icky. That's it. That's all this outrage is about.
I'm sure they are and that is the point I'm making. I mean even as an adult male if I went to my doctor and said I want to transition genders they aren't likely going to start prescribing me hormone replacement but will tell me to read up what is involved including what could go wrong. You're reading way too much into my statement. I suspect it's because you're having an involved debate with others who are coming with a bias so you're reflexively reading a bias into my statement. As stated I think the fear of trans is overblown but that doesn't mean that treatments shouldn't be treated cautiously. I mean even my rotator cuff surgery was treated with caution including considering alternatives. There is no political bias regarding rotator cuff surgeries. (well yet everything gets political these days..)
I guess my point is: It is being treated cautiously. I'm just stating your framing seems like a directive to them implying they aren't doing that yet. If that isn't how you intended the meaning of your statement, then ya ignore my rant.
Good question. It's around ease of access, therapeutic value, and harm to others. It's pretty common for teens to experiment with alcohol and drugs. # of reasons for that. They think it's cool, it's quite popular, and it's widely available. They can also be extremely addictive and causes great harm to not just themselves but to society. Drinking alcohol has no therapeutic value. Most illicit drugs have no therapeutic value (but some that do are available as a prescription). With such ease of access and harm done to self and others, the gov should rightly play a role in the regulation of alcohol to minors. Gender modification therapy is not easy to get. Teens can't get gender change surgery or hormone blocker off the shelves or even on the black market. It is not cool, it's not popular and it requires a doctor. There is therapeutic value. Teens aren't going to want this unless they are quite desperate. Parents aren't going to want this unless they are very desperate. If they do go through with it, it impacts them but not anyone else. Thus, I think it should be left to the family and their doctor. The gov should only be involved if there is potential child abuse - and as I said, doctors can be that gate and report any potential abuse.
Again, I sent my best wishes about the bomb threat way earlier in this thread. It was a tragic set of events. Here are some examples from a quick search... https://mercatornet.com/chloe-cole-gender-transition/80073/ https://bioedge.org/beginning-of-life-issues/13-year-olds-given-mastectomies-at-california-clinic/ https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-transgender-teen-20160414-story.html
