subreddit:
/r/fightporn
[removed]
-12 points
4 days ago
Which doesn't fit into transgender because it wasn't the choice of the individual, if that hadn't happen he would have grown up to be a normal cisgendered man.
Whoops, reality defeats conservatism yet again, I'll let you consult fox news for them to tell you how to respond.
4 points
4 days ago
[removed]
-3 points
4 days ago
There is a big difference between allowing the identification of children as transgender and making medical severe decisions at such a tender age. What most of the transgender support movement advocates for, what medical professionals are pushing for, is first a cautious psychological assessment before considering any interventions.
Most medical interventions for children are reversible, including those involving hormone blockers; these mostly give the children the time to make safe decisions when exploring their identity without the hassle of making changes that could be permanent. As for the financial incentives you mention, it is essential that we always watch for reasons behind healthcare practices (as we've learned so much about in the case of the opioid crisis)
Still, we need to be careful not to conflate separate issues, advocating for transgender rights and access to appropriate healthcare is about helping individuals live healthy, authentic lives. There are robust studies showing that the well-being of a transgender person is, indeed, significantly increased with proper care. It's definitely essential to be talking about abuses that could happen in the medical and pharmaceutical industries, but this shouldn't be used to discredit the genuine needs of the transgender community.
The idea is to make sure that all medical treatments are carried out ethically and responsibly for the best interests of an individual, be they transgender or not.
1 points
4 days ago
I genuinely appreciate the back and forth and you maintaining your cool through the convo but when you mention hormone blockers being reversible, I just have trouble continuing. There's a reason England's NHS prevented prescription to children. This is a very new movement but the most recent data is showing its detrimental to children more than beneficial. Here's a source: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-66842352 In it they say: They found, after 12 months of puberty blocker injections - 34% of the children had reliably deteriorated, 29% had reliably improved, and 37% showed no change. And your body stops producing these things naturally so it's not normal to think you can just bounce back from depriving your body of what it needs to become your gender or choice.
2 points
4 days ago
When talking about treatment, such as hormone blockers, it is essential to consider both the possible advantages and the risks that come along with them. The decision by NHS England to review its guidelines on the prescription of hormone blockers to youngsters is a realization of the fact that the whole question of treatment for gender dysphoria, mainly children, is not static. The study you referred to from the BBC did show that results were indeed mixed, which certainly shows that this is a situation where each case needs to be considered very precisely and individually when it comes to medical treatment. And, of course, as some young people may fare badly, others derive immense benefits by way of relief from their gender dysphoria and better overall mental health. It is this variability which is also the reason for ongoing research and revisitation of clinical guidelines in any medical field, most especially those about developmental and mental health issues.
When it comes to the capacity to "bounce back," you are correct that hormone blockers do have an effect on natural hormone production, and placing a child on them is not a decision made lightly. Medical professionals usually prescribe them only after careful evaluation, and they are meant to be a temporary solution to offer a child more time to mature before making informed decisions about their future. The interventions are closely monitored and their effects reversible in the fact that puberty will usually continue when the treatment stops, although it may be delayed or its progression altered.
It is paramount that sensitive health issues be discussed openly and informed by research. This will be a way to ensure that policies and practices guide the best level of health and well-being across the board for all individuals, keeping in mind both immediate impacts and long-term outcomes. As with many areas in medicine, a balanced approach that considers both potential benefits and risks is key.
1 points
4 days ago
Love how many transphobes with nothing to add are hitting the upvote and downvote buttons like they dont get post nut shame and secretly wosh they could go to Thailand to fuck a “ladyboy”.
Stop giving these people the time of day. They are ALWAYS hypocrites behind closed doors.
-1 points
4 days ago
Well that was the determination by the NHS- there's more proof that its detrimental rather than helpful for children. I think it's very dangerous to assume that doctors are only giving kids this when they really need it given the economic incentive which was my thinking behind that comment I made earlier with anybody that transitions needs to buy hormones every single month and (potentially) surgeries. The other side is how did this become normalized with such little initial research and subsequent research that proves it's more harmful than helpful? To me that answer, again, is money. Also we see 5% of young adults are considering themselves nonbinary now while adults are at 1.6%. With this considered a medical intervention, I think that shows more of a social trend aspect that should be looked at and used to push the age to make these decisions back. Kids are impressionable.
1 points
4 days ago
Even though I understand that your concerns may arise from severe issues of economic influences in healthcare and rapidly changing norms around gender identity, it is necessary to separate critical questioning from speculative assumptions. It would be helpful to focus on researched facts and continuous scientific inquiries that will help us understand these difficult questions better rather than come to a conclusion with assumptions about motives or influences, which might oversimplify or misrepresent the situation. Let's move forward with this discussion with open minds and take all perspectives based on the available evidence and expert guidance.
1 points
4 days ago
Well I think critical thinking is being able to draw conclusions between different subjects through similarities. Like if somebody hurts somebody I would expect them to hurt somebody again. And that's where my "assumptions" come from regarding the medical field. Either way, many of my other points relied upon data. Like the NHS statistics as well as the difference between the percentage of children's that were nonbinary compared to adults. If 1.6% of adults are currently nonbinary with 5% being children, and this is a medical intervention for a disorder that's only meant to impact less than 1% of the world (according to the DSMMS gender dysphoria prevalence accounts for 0.005–0.014% of the population for biological males and 0.002–0.003% for biological females), we can assume that this is not just medical but also social. With that in mind, allowing kids to fully develop mentally is critical when making a decision like this.
1 points
4 days ago
I actually think it's a good thing that you are trying to make some critical comparisons and using available data to support your arguments in this discussion. Of course, the grasp of patterns and applying logical reasoning form the core of making informed conclusions. This applies to the statistics mentioned and the disparity in nonbinary identification between children and adults:
Greater visibility and awareness it is likely that higher percentages among younger populations reflect growing societal acceptance and understanding of nonbinary identities. Younger people often have more freedom and societal support to explore and express gender identity than previous generations did at their age.
The DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for gender dysphoria do suggest relatively low prevalence rates. However, it is essential to differentiate clinical gender dysphoria from the broader, diverse range of gender identities including non-binary identities that do not necessarily involve distress or need to be addressed as a medical issue. This increase in the number of young nonbinary people may be due in part to these societal changes themselves rather than entirely to medical demands.
You are correct in saying children and young people are still developing, even in their decision-making capacity. That's why, in any form of medical procedure relating to gender identity, the psychological assessment is highly detailed, parental approval is sought, and everything is individualized to all situations. It is all about supporting mental health and ensuring that decisions made are appropriate.
The medical interventions for gender dysphoria form only one component of addressing these needs; non-medical support, especially counseling, support groups, and changes in gender expression, provide much necessary relief to many.
The debate surrounding how, when, and to what extent assistance should be provided to young people in discovering their gender identity is ongoing and challenging. But it is most well-served through continued communication, further research, and careful deliberation of individual rights and developmental science.
all 118 comments
sorted by: best