Should minors be allowed to transition?

[Leo Gura]

13 minutes ago, Devin said:

Yeah I agree, but by that logic if it's outlawed then it's no longer an option or problem.

You can't really outlaw it. People will just find black markets for it.

Dudes like Rogan take hormones even if they are illegal.

The funny thing is half these fucking right-wingers are taking hormones because they don't feel macho enough, which are destroying their bodies. Yet they bitch about trans people and call it dangerous. How about the real danger is young boys copying Rogan with hormone use? That's 1000x more people than trans in the whole country. Why is Rogan grooming young men into dangerous drug use?

It's acceptable for men to use hormones simply because it reinforces traditional gender stereotypes. Which is really what this war is about. If some dude gets surgery to make his dick bigger, no right-winger is gonna complain about it.

Edited January 20, 2023 by Leo Gura

[Devin]

4 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

You can't really outlaw it. People will just find black markets for it.

Dudes like Rogan take hormones even if they are illegal.

The funny thing is half these fucking right-wingers are taking hormones because they don't feel macho enough, which are destroying their bodies. Yet they bitch about trans people and call it dangerous. How about the real danger is young boys copying Rogan with hormone use? That's 100x more people than trans in the whole country. Why is Rogan grooming young men into dangerous drug use?

True

[Devin]

That's what I've assumed, it's because they're given the option, obviously given options some people are going to take different options. To me this makes me oppose it even more though or at least refuse to support it, I would say no to kids transitioning until I hear a better argument.

[gettoefl]

33 minutes ago, Devin said:

@gettoefl So what about before we had these medical capabilities? The people just didn't have a chance?

do you want people to have a tortured life like the LBGTQi community would have had in the past?

you have the chance to live a fulfilled life now whatever your choices

of course some will make mistakes with it but that is the price of freedom

how about we keep a person's gender a personal private matter until they are 18 unless they choose to tell you

assume non binary unless otherwise stated

[zurew]

13 minutes ago, Devin said:

That's what I've assumed, it's because they're given the option, obviously given options some people are going to take different options. To me this makes me oppose it even more though or at least refuse to support it, I would say no to kids transitioning until I hear a better argument.

The big problem with this type of thinking is that there is no good alternative option is given, so if you go with this thought process you leave these people in the dust with nothing. Its not just an option, its giving an access to a special kind of medical treatment.

[Devin]

5 minutes ago, zurew said:

The big problem with this type of thinking is that there is no good alternative option is given, so if you go with this thought process you leave these people in the dust with nothing. Its not just an option, its giving an access to a special kind of medical treatment.

So do you not agree with " it is because they have a choice that they even have this problem"?

Edited January 20, 2023 by Devin

[Devin]

10 minutes ago, gettoefl said:

do you want people to have a tortured life like the LBGTQi community would have had in the past?

you have the chance to live a fulfilled life now whatever your choices

of course some will make mistakes with it but that is the price of freedom

how about we keep a person's gender a personal private matter until they are 18 unless they choose to tell you

assume non binary unless otherwise stated

So conceptualise a time where we're socially conscious as we are now, but still lack sex transition capabilities, in this scenario are theses people hopeless?

[Devin]

Unless a boy is wearing dresses to school or a girl is.... I don't know, we accept masculine girls already, but unless a boy is wearing a dress to school or something to that extreme, he can get away with some pretty feminine behavior fairly well like; piano, choir, painting, poetry, writing, swimming. What more social liberty does one need?

I think the trans swimmer is too far in my opinion, swimming is already a feminine sport, I don't see requiring them to swim with their traditional gender to be harmful. It's not like they don't have a men's team, say maybe some girls activity I can't think of where there's no men's team, sure let them be on the women's team.

I admit I'm ignorant here, but I'm trying to see your views and just don't.

[zurew]

16 minutes ago, Devin said:

So do you not agree with " it is because they have a choice that they even have this problem"?

No, I don't. How far would you give with that logic? Should we destroy all modern medical technology?

The argument of "sometimes having too much option is bad" is only good or a sounding argument, if the alternative of "not having any or having less option" is a better alternative, but how could you argue that the lack of option in this case creates a better outcome , when all the relevant factors (suicide rate, depression) - still stays high among these people?

Edited January 20, 2023 by zurew

[Devin]

1 minute ago, zurew said:

No, I don't. How far would you give with that logic? Should destroy all modern medical technology?

The argument of "sometimes having too much option is bad" is only good or a sounding argument, if the alternative of "not having any or having less option" is a better alternative, but how could you argue that the lack of option in this case a better outcome , when all the relevant factors (suicide rate, depression) - still stays high among these people?

So what about before we had these medical capabilities? The people just didn't have a chance?

I'm curious what these statistics show prior to these transition capabilities. A theory of mine is that if you take away the option you take away the specific problem, albeit not the root problem, but by puting the option on the table you're spreading this new problem to more kids.

[Devin]

@zurewLike your statistics; if you give the kids options and then see which ones have depression, the ones that were granted their choice or the ones that weren't, that would be bad statistical interpretation to come to your conclusion. Would you mind referencing some statistics for me to look at?

Edited January 20, 2023 by Devin

[Devin]

https://www.thetrevorproject.org/

Is this the study you refer to?

 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35212746/

This one is small in size and duration, I don't see this anywhere near conclusive.

Edited January 20, 2023 by Devin

[gettoefl]

30 minutes ago, Devin said:

So conceptualise a time where we're socially conscious as we are now, but still lack sex transition capabilities, in this scenario are theses people hopeless?

you can do 3 things: change how you present yourself, take hormones/blockers, have surgery

the first two are always available to you

[zurew]

12 minutes ago, Devin said:

A theory of mine is that if you take away the option you take away the specific problem, albeit not the root problem, but by puting the option on the table you're spreading this new problem to more kids.

I don't think that you believe in that logic, because If you go with that logic, then  most modern medical treatments and tech should be destroyed and taken away, but I don't think that could be called a solution at all. This kind of argument could only work, if you could put = between the treatment and the problem, but when there is an underlying fact of the matter, then this logic can't be reasonably applied, because there is a root cause that requires a solution or a treatment. But the thing is that even when you can't solve the root problem, we still often create a treatment that in the vast majority of the cases still better, than not having any treatment at all.

The other thing is that even if I would agree with the premise (I don't) that if you take away this option, then people would somehow forget about it or adapt to the situation, your argument I believe would still be flawed. The reason for that is, because you can't put the genie back in the bottle (meaning, that we already use hormone therapy for other stuff, we already do surgery for many other reasons as well), so you can't basically destroy or hide these things and even if somehow you could outlaw in your country, people would still have the opportunity to move to a country, where they have the option to do so, and even if you could bring up a strange hypothetical scenario where the whole world globally would outlaw this treatment there would still be a black market for it.

Plus it seems that you might have the assumption that it is 100% caused by social factors, but I can't agree with that premise either. I don't exactly know what you mean by social factors, but even if I were to agree with your premise, I still wouldn't agree with your prescription (to just take away the option) for the reasons I already mentioned + I would add here  , (even if we go with the 100%caused by social factors assumption).  that it seems that transitioning drastically help people with gender dysphoria, when it comes to suicidal thoughts and depression.

 

[Intraplanetary]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

When you have no option to change yourself, it's actually a lot easier to accept yourself

the guy is gay and he wanted to be a girl in his puberty, but since transgenderism was unheard thing back then, he accepted himself to be a man. He also speculates that people should evolve past transgenderism in the future. 

Edited January 20, 2023 by Intraplanetary

[Devin]

1 hour ago, zurew said:

I don't think that you believe in that logic, because If you go with that logic, then  most modern medical treatments and tech should be destroyed and taken away, but I don't think that could be called a solution at all. This kind of argument could only work, if you could put = between the treatment and the problem, but when there is an underlying fact of the matter, then this logic can't be reasonably applied, because there is a root cause that requires a solution or a treatment. But the thing is that even when you can't solve the root problem, we still often create a treatment that in the vast majority of the cases still better, than not having any treatment at all.

The other thing is that even if I would agree with the premise (I don't) that if you take away this option, then people would somehow forget about it or adapt to the situation, your argument I believe would still be flawed. The reason for that is, because you can't put the genie back in the bottle (meaning, that we already use hormone therapy for other stuff, we already do surgery for many other reasons as well), so you can't basically destroy or hide these things and even if somehow you could outlaw in your country, people would still have the opportunity to move to a country, where they have the option to do so, and even if you could bring up a strange hypothetical scenario where the whole world globally would outlaw this treatment there would still be a black market for it.

Plus it seems that you might have the assumption that it is 100% caused by social factors, but I can't agree with that premise either. I don't exactly know what you mean by social factors, but even if I were to agree with your premise, I still wouldn't agree with your prescription (to just take away the option) for the reasons I already mentioned + I would add here  , (even if we go with the 100%caused by social factors assumption).  that it seems that transitioning drastically help people with gender dysphoria, when it comes to suicidal thoughts and depression.

 

What other modern treatments would you say could also then be taken away? Abortion? I don't think that lines up in the same manner, society dissuades children from procreating so children having abortions still aligns with common thought.

I would also say, my reasoning is not based in black and white logic, it's also based in tradition.

Do you not agree that the availability(legal) of this treatment fosters gender dysphoria? I don't see parents getting away with taking there kids anywhere and returning with a transitioned kid, they'd still be prosecuted for child abuse or whatever.

[zurew]

22 minutes ago, Devin said:

Do you not agree that the availability(legal) of this treatment fosters gender dysphoria?

Maybe somewhat, but the argument of making it illegal is just a really bad argument for the reasons I already mentioned in my previous posts. 

22 minutes ago, Devin said:

I would also say, my reasoning is not based in black and white logic, it's also based in tradition.

Based in tradition how? and how that helps to mitigate the problem at hand?

22 minutes ago, Devin said:

What other modern treatments would you say could also then be taken away?

You can't reasonably take away or outlaw any modern medical treatments,without presenting a better alternative to their place, and as I already mentioned in my previous post, with that move you just make people to move to a different country, where it is avaliable and you make the black market bigger.

Edited January 20, 2023 by zurew

[MrMog]

@Leo Gura But isn't Joe Rogan only saying, that he does TRT (Testosterone replacement therapy) which could be argued, that it's even healthy? Because at a certain age your Testosterone drops and you can keep it high that way

[Devin]

16 minutes ago, zurew said:

Maybe somewhat, but the argument of making it illegal is just a really bad argument for the reasons I already mentioned in my previous posts. 

I don't follow what you're saying about "because If you go with that logic, then  most modern medical treatments and tech should be destroyed and taken away,"

Like what other tech should be destroyed by using my logic? In my view this "tech" is harmful.

I agrèe the depression needs addressed somehow though. But to me tradition, especially for children, offers useful structure that actually can help prevent depression. Also like I previously said I think there's enough social wiggle room where these kids should be able to get by being enough feminine or masculine, etc. as they want to be, we're rolling pretty good with social acceptance lately.

20 minutes ago, zurew said:

Based in tradition how? and how that helps to mitigate the problem at hand?.

Just as in that's how it used to be, we didn't use to remove children's penis', Although I will say we have mutilated children traditionally via circumcision and trimming clitoris', but I think we're outgrowing that.

 

22 minutes ago, zurew said:

You can't reasonably take away or outlaw any modern medical treatments,without presenting a better alternative to their place, and as I already mentioned in my previous post, with that move you just make people to move to a different country, where it is avaliable and you make the black market bigger.

Well you can't take it off the table 100%, but you can make it so impractical that 99% of the population no longer view it as an option. Although being that there will always be the possibility of legalizing it, it could still be desired by some, but likely just adults not children, and especially not young children.

[zurew]

1 hour ago, Devin said:

But to me tradition, especially for children, offers useful structure that actually can help prevent depression

Except it doesn't - you can see depression skyrocketing and a lot of kids are suicidal as well. Traditional stuff doesn't seem to be enough to address complex mental health problems we have right now. We know that transitioning works for people with gender dysphoria, so why be so against it, when it is well documented that it works and no other method let alone traditional method work, and no data suggest that any other method would be anywhere near close as effective and succesful.

1 hour ago, Devin said:

Just as in that's how it used to be, we didn't use to remove children's penis', Although I will say we have mutilated children traditionally via circumcision and trimming clitoris', but I think we're outgrowing that.

There is no going back no matter how much you want to outlaw it or how much you want to make it impractical. Again, what you do is making a bigger black market for it , and people will have to move to other countries to have access to this medical treatment. You won't solve this problem ,you will just make a bigger problem + you will make it harder for people to try to treat this problem.

Also its not like suddenly people will never ever mention these things ever again, more and more people will going to talk about these things, your idea won't and wouldn't stop any of it.

1 hour ago, Devin said:

it could still be desired by some, but likely just adults not children, and especially not young children.

 I still don't  understand how you see this "argument" or thought process sound. You want to make it so that children don't have any access to this, and then you don't provide any alternative, even though these children would be left with high depression and suicide rates.

You don't solve any root issue with this, and at the same time you would take away the only well known solution/treatment regarding on this topic.

1 hour ago, Devin said:

In my view this "tech" is harmful.

Nowhere near as harmful compared to not providing any other alternative treatment to this problem.

Edited January 20, 2023 by zurew