> the argument against irreversibly treating children is still a reasonable position
Allowing a trans child to go through their natal puberty is not a neutral act. A trans person who "passes" has a much better lifetime outcome thanks to facing less discrimination and having less body image issues (not many people living as females would enjoy being called a man in a dress and harassed regularly based on their body proportions regardless of their chromosomes).
> and not the shallowly insulting straw man argument you present as the only option.
It's not a shallow straw man. Anti-trans activists want to ban care for trans people outright. They want conversion therapy - or what they have slickly labled "gender exploratory therapy" - to be the only treatment available.
If we hadn't lived through many decades where such treatment was already the only option and seen how disastrous it was I may be less inclined to say they are acting in bad faith, but, alas, we know exactly what conversion therapy does: it creates incredibly traumatized adults who are still trans.
> If you're not ideologically invested in this topic and are sincerely interested in the truth, I'd urge you to look at your own country from an outsider's point of view. The point being, many sources in the US that were reputable (i.e. scientific american) are parroting misinformation about this topic in service of ideology.
You've really been running wild in this comments section, as have I. I can see that we're both very interested in this topic, but from different sides.
What I'll point out here again, is that you continue to paint reputable organizations that disagree with you as "ideological" while maintaining yourself as some sort of unbiased outside observer. This is blatantly untrue.
You are the one trying to change the facts being reported by reputable sources. You are the activist who is engaged in a campaign of attempting to ideologically modify unbiased institutions.
I think the trans topic can really rile people up, and there's no shortage of think pieces of conspiracy theories about it. Same as has existed around lots of minority groups that caught the attention and ire of the larger public.
You aren't the unbiased observer however. You are an activist, and it shows in your writing.
I think you're ideologically motivated, and arguing from a position of emotional distaste for trans people rather than unbiased concern about medical practice. Here's why:
> any legitimate discussion or criticism about gender-affirming care, possible social cause that's driving the increase of trans-identifying teenagers
Trans-identified is a term created by anti-trans activists initially as an "in joke" because calling someone a trans identified male or trans identified female created acronyms that spelled traditionally female and male names: TIM and TIF, where TIM would be applied to trans women and TIF would be applied to trans men. A group that is serious about improving the world wouldn't choose their terminology so as to make fun of or harass people. A hate group would.
> or how certain trans rights infringes on women's rights
It's not at all clear that trans rights infringe on women's rights. The right to segregate yourself from elements of the population that you find distasteful isn't guaranteed. Otherwise we'd still have Jim Crow laws in the American South and lesbians would still be barred from women's sports due to concerns about them being predatory in locker rooms - yes this was a big concern in the 1980's.
> the capture of cultural institutions by radical activists
This is conspiratorial thinking. "Institutions" are made up of individuals and operate under some guiding principles. They aren't captured like territories in a game of risk.
> This would also mean that statements made by countries that are arguably more progressive than the US (i.e. UK and European countries) about the current trans issue would fall into that category as well.
The UK and EU have different politics than the US. They are economically more egalitarian, but socially can be very conservative.
> it's hard to believe that the medical and activist organisations in the US are actually acting in good faith
Why would you conflate medical and activist organizations? Isn't it possible that you are the activist, and that you'd like to bend medical organizations to your will because they disagree with your own prejudices?
> Anyone of sound mind can clearly evaluate that my point isn't transphobic. The reply to this comment is a demonstration of what's wrong with the US.
Saying that nobody can disagree with you unless they are mentally unwell, and then calling someone who disagreed with you an example of "what's wrong with the US" is very odd behavior. It doesn't seem like the way someone operating in good faith would behave.
> The UK and the EU have moved away from gender-affirming care and designated it an experimental treatment.
The UK and EU are hardly a paradise for trans people. Until recently they even REQUIRED trans people to be sterilized, I suppose under the dual assumptions that 1.) they weren't fit to have children and 2.) if there's a genetic component to being transgender it's best to weed it out.
These days, you'll notice a lot of europeans calling to clamp down on transgender people because they'd prefer for them to be gay. Conversion therapy is conversion therapy, however, and whether you do it US style where you try to make someone a good straight Christian or European style where you try to make them a feminine male or butch female, it's still wrong.
As for sterilization, people bring this up without pointing out that we can bank sperm and eggs. A treatment plan for trans youth can wait until they reach a tanner stage (these are the stages of puberty) where they can bank before starting puberty blockers. That is more reasonable than an outright ban.
As for Lupron's side effects, parents are informed about possible side effects. Just like with precocious puberty. It remains telling that families are allowed to access these treatments for some reasons but not others. The double standard betrays prejudice and political meddling in the affairs of parents and doctors.
> A shallow dismissal, a perfectly reasonable argument against irreversible action for changing children’s genders is that many of them aren’t so sure as it seems and later want to transition back.
About 2% want to transition back. 98% are quite sure, and are happy with being treated. Trans youth who are not treated tend to be miserable as adults, with many committing suicide since their bodies have been shaped by the puberty of their natal sex in such a way as to draw constant negative attention. While it is very reasonable to want to lower that 2% rate down even further, attempting to rip care away from that other 98% is not reasonable. Just prejudice, masquerading as concern for children, same as the 80's when "save the children" was having a national campaign against homosexual rights.
Children with gender dysphoria are not "perfectly healthy."
They have a serious problem. The level of hubris in assuming that all these heterosexual parents, many of them conservative, would just up and decide to "trans" their kids is outstanding.
Whatever makes people trans is immutable. Every possible way has been tried to "fix" them, by making them happy as their assigned sex. All the attempts just led to broken people, many of whom killed themselves.
The gall to just insert yourself into the lives of these kids and their families, without understanding their struggles or knowing them, and trying to take away the one proven path to them having a happy successful life is really something to behold.
> Being intersex is very rare and unfortunate, and I am sympathetic to those with such birth defects.
Agnes Torres was not intersex, she was merely classed as such which allowed her to live a normal life. Funny enough, your comment itself shows why this was successful. You see intersex as more legitimate and because of that you "give it a pass."
Agnes Torres was transgender, but was treated as legitimate back in the 1950's. Being treated like a normal human being allowed her to live a good life back then, free from hate.
It goes to show, if people would just allow trans people to live their lives, they could blend in with society. The thing holding them back is just... prejudice. How sad.
> Not really though, it's perfectly possible to be gender non-conforming without undergoing drastic medical procedures. In particular, all the women and men who reject the societal impositions of femininity and masculinity, while still being comfortable with their bodies.
Yes, I was pointing out how the conversion therapy works. I know lots of happy feminine gay men and butch gay women for example, but they don't have gender dysphoria. Trans people aren't the same as feminine gay men or butch gay women.
Zucker himself, whose conversion therapy included punishing boys for playing with barbies, said he supported the idea of someone being a feminine man and saw his therapy as a way of achieving that. He would straight up tell parents that their children would most likely be gay, but that being gay was better than being trans.
So, ironically, we have a conversion therapy, where the aim was to turn trans kids gay. I guess they thought that if you punished gender non-conformity early on you could instill a sense of maleness or femaleness into a kid, and then later they could just be more femme or butch as they liked. Sick stuff.
> Gay people don't require any medical interventions to be gay, so it's not really the same thing.
Many homophobes have made "medical" arguments about why sodomy should be banned. Aids was seen as a "gay disease" and as proof of how homosexuality caused and spread diseases. A good friend of mine's mother refused to have her hair done by a gay man in our small town because she said she was scared he may cut his hand while cutting her hair and give her hepatitis or aids (what's more, she was a nurse).
Beyond that, pathologization of gender non-conformity is why homosexuality was classed as an illness until relatively recently, and it's been a common source of medicalized discrimination shared by gay and trans people.
> why are there so many detransitioners coming out recently
Because the same few are being trotted about by conservative media outlets and political action committees to stir up hate.
A study showing the rate of desistance in trans youth, using more recent cohorts, showing that it still hovers around 2% where it has basically always been:
tl;dr 98% of trans youth are well served by receiving medical care and 2% are not. Conservative media blows up coverage on the 2% in order to try to ban treatment for that other 98% instead of doing the sane and humane thing, which would be to try to screen out more of the 2% from getting care and allowing that 98% live happy lives.
> I think you're jumping to conclusions --- my reading of GP is that "the cause" == dysphoria.
Conversion therapists like Ken Zucker know full well about gender dysphoria and helped create the old "gender identity disorder" diagnosis in DSM IV. The "conversion" they are trying to achieve is to change the child's gender identity so that it's congruent with their sex via conversion therapy. This has failed spectacularly time and time again, and yet, prejudice against trans people, keeps folks interested in "treating" gender dysphoria in this manner.
There was an article on Zucker and his practices in 2008.
What it comes down to is just punishing gender non-conforming behavior. Kids treated in this way have been prone to commit suicide as adults, or, to transition anyway but then have to deal with a lifetime of ridicule for having the marks of a male puberty on their body. Outing them as transgender at a glance, whereas if they'd have had access to gender affirming care they'd have been able to blend in and, you know, go buy milk at the store without being gawked at or harassed.
> pushed into taking these experimental treatments for a few months
It's a shame that this person was in such a difficult situation, but, barring some extraordinarily rare reaction, a few months would not cause long term problems. The full impact takes several years, by 3-6 months the very first changes are only starting to become visible and many of them are things like changes to skin quality and fat distribution which revert after cessation.
It's still possibly a failure that your acquaintance got on HRT or Lupron in the first place. Given that long term follow ups show, consistently, that less than 2% of trans youth "desist" and are happy with their treatments, the reasonable solution to that failure would be to require some sort of evaluation by a therapist who has been trained to spot when someone has gender dysphoria and belongs to that 98% of happy transitioners versus someone from the 2% group that will desist because their issues came from somewhere else.
Instead of that sort of reasonable response, we see calls for outright bans on all treatment with many also calling for banning treatment for adults and a reversion to conversion therapy as the only "treatment" - it's not a treatment because it doesn't work and just hurts people.
The reason for this, is that the vast majority of people who suddenly have such strong opinions on trans health care are not actually concerned about people's health. They've just found a way to make their prejudices against transgender people sound like reasonable concerns.
And yet, Lupron has been used since the 1970's to treat precocious puberty and every single ban on using it for gender affirming care still allows it to be administered for that purpose. Medical associations also approve its use, in both cases.
When the people against it are only against it for one group of people, and doctors by and large disagree with them, it makes me suspicious that their motives are not based in concern for health and instead are based on personal feelings that are being projected onto an external cause.
Puberty blockers have been administered as a valid treatment for precocious puberty for many decades. All of the bans on them specifically still allow them to be used for this purpose, because they are indeed safe enough. It's just that people don't like the idea of children being transgender, probably because it reminds them that they could potentially have a gay or transgender child.
The Alan Turing lie is laughable, Lupron wasn't even invented until 20+ years after Alan Turing was given hormone injections. The falsehoods you're spouting have the hallmarks of coming from Twitter infographics meant to enrage you. Trans care has been made into a wedge issue by US politicians as a way of taking advantage of people's ignorance about the topic, and their knee-jerk dislike of gender non-conformity. An incredible amount of non-sense is being spread, the same as it was about gay people in the 70's and 80's.
> In fact, "trans kids" has never been a thing until about two or three years ago.
Another blatant lie, but it's a fun opportunity to talk about the first trans kid in the US, Agnes Torres. She started taking hormone therapy as a child in 1950. Nearly 80 years ago.
Doctors declared her intersex and she was given a fast track to having her documents changed. She went on to marry and have a nice normal life, because people left her alone. Trans people today could have the same if not for the vicious ignorance propagated by political parties looking for fresh meat.
Controversial theory, most of the people who claim to be "ready", and seem oddly excited about the possibility of upheaval and turmoil, are already lost down some sort of algorithm induced ideological rabbit hole. Conveniently, one of the symptoms of hosting an internet mind-virus, is that you don't think internet mind-viruses are all that bad.
The common thread between homophobia and transphobia is a dislike of gender non-conformity. Since the days of Ernst Rohm [0] there has been an element of the gay community convinced that gender non-conforming gays - femmes - were the real problem. There are plenty of straight conservatives who are willing to play along with this for a time too since a masculine man isn't hard to accept as long as you don't think about what he does in his bedroom.
What you call "gender ideology" - a dogwhistle similar to Trans Identified Male and Trans Identified Female, acronyms specifically chosen to aggravate trans people by spelling out stereotypically female and male names - is, in some ways, everything that conservative gays and conservative straights disliked about stereotypical homosexuals distilled into its purest form. It violates the taboo of males being overly feminine (queens) and females being overly masculine (d*kes). It's also why drag queens, who are not transgender, are being swept up into the current moral panic.
It's strange to watch anti-trans activists make a big fuss about trans people changing their physical appearance, then go out and support things like drag bans which are also being used to prevent trans people from appearing in public [1]. Those bans are 100% about forcing people to wear certain clothing. I feel like legislating people's wardrobes according to the sex they were assigned at birth really gives away what's really going on here.
Even if all trans people stopped getting any hormones or surgeries tomorrow and even if they stopped using the pronouns that they feel fit them, and even if they stopped using the restrooms that fit them they would still be hated and attacked. They would be attacked for the same reason that feminine gay men and masculine gay women have always taken the brunt of homophobia.
Because what people hate is gender non-conformity. They want males to be reasonably masculine and wear clothing that is considered stereotypically male, and vice versa for females. The talk about scary medical procedures and men and women being erased and even fairness in sports is just a way of making that impulse sound reasonable and justified.
Calling gender affirming care "gay conversion therapy" is a disingenuous tactic deployed by anti-trans activists. One of the most common things that parents who disown their trans kids say is "why can't you just be gay" so pitching it as conversion therapy is very... odd.
You even illustrate this point yourself when you say:
> Very few conservatives in 2023 are riled up by homosexuality.
but also...
> the current trend of medicalizing gender as a form of gay conversion therapy
Kenneth Zucker's whole practice was geared, in fact, toward converting trans kids into gay kids. He says himself in his writing that being homosexual is preferable to being transsexual, since the latter requires medical intervention. The thing is, trans people and gay people have different needs and desires. They aren't the same group. So it's wrong to try to force gay kids to be trans or trans kids to be gay. But these days what you'll find is trans kids being pushed to be gay. A perfect inversion of the image you've painted.
The reason I "conflate" transsexuality (the word has two s's, also nobody uses it anymore, you should just say 'being transgender') with being gay is because the very same arguments and tactics used against gay people in the 80's - it's a mental illness, a social contagion, they're grooming kids, etc... - is being used again against trans people today. There was even a bathroom and women's sports panic in the 80's around lesbians in women's sports "preying" on straight girls.
Trans people had been considered merely a part of the gay community, along with other gender non-conforming people who may today identify as non-binary, until relatively recently. The fight for gay rights benefitted trans people, but we're at a point now where they have their own struggles, like the struggle for medical treatment.
It's a struggle that's been fought since the 70's when Janice Raymond wrote "The Transsexual Empire" and worked with the Reagan administration to make it more difficult for trans people to get medical treatment. Nothing about it is new, except for the alliance between conservative Christians and secular anti-trans activists - an unholy union if I've ever seen one.
On one side, you see adults who believe that sexuality and cross-gender identification are immutable, or at least practically immutable. Their goal is to expose e.g. heterosexual kids to the idea that some of their peers will be different from them so that they aren't shocked and scandalized by it later, then lash out unfairly as a result of prejudice against the unknown.
On the other side, you see adults who equate deviations from acceptable expressions of sexuality and gender - you don't see many conservatives boycotting national brands over young boys at hooters or child beauty pageants featuring little girls - as being inherently obscene. They naturally want to protect children from what they see as obscene and abnormal.
They both believe that they have children's best interests at heart.
That said, based on all available data, it seems like sexuality and gender identification are mostly immutable and that truth will slowly win out in the end. For example, nearly every conservative has met a little boy who acted remarkably girlish since toddlerhood and grew up to be gay unsurprisingly. Seeing that process play out, then claiming that gayness is a social contagion requires cognitive dissonance.
It's a part of the process of social change.... The last huge wave of homophobia that had legal consequences was in the 1970's and was led by a group called "Save the Children" -- it's all just the same dynamics repeating, except today it's more-so around broader gender norms, as opposed to a narrow focus on "men sleep with women". This video does a great job of laying it out through that sort of lens: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6qUxa30SFA
You'll also notice that the logo makes the face from the "NPC" memes that would have still been popular among the 4chan "politically incorrect" crowd right around the time this project was allegedly started. Sadly, for enterprising edgelords, Elon has usurped them all by turning Twitter itself into the ultimate "alt-tech" app. Like, seriously, unless you want to share illegal pornography, why not just share your spicey maymays on Twitter where they'll get more reach? Impressive amount of follow through regardless.
I'm curious to know what sorts of things you were thinking about when you wrote this. The tone of it reads as emotional and defensive rather than informative. It would probably contribute more to the discussion if you expressed your own ideas rather than attempting to pre-empt the ideas of others by listing them in bullet point format. Wouldn't you agree? :3
Allowing a trans child to go through their natal puberty is not a neutral act. A trans person who "passes" has a much better lifetime outcome thanks to facing less discrimination and having less body image issues (not many people living as females would enjoy being called a man in a dress and harassed regularly based on their body proportions regardless of their chromosomes).
> and not the shallowly insulting straw man argument you present as the only option.
It's not a shallow straw man. Anti-trans activists want to ban care for trans people outright. They want conversion therapy - or what they have slickly labled "gender exploratory therapy" - to be the only treatment available.
If we hadn't lived through many decades where such treatment was already the only option and seen how disastrous it was I may be less inclined to say they are acting in bad faith, but, alas, we know exactly what conversion therapy does: it creates incredibly traumatized adults who are still trans.