Anti-trans bigots: "Puberty blockers are child abuse"

Post Reply New Topic

Instead of just saying "I read it somewhere" or posting some half-arsed opinion, I prefer to post links to articles that (1) render factual information to other members, and/or that (2) back up something I have stated as fact.

It's easy to do, but not as easy as criticizing someone for doing it.

@vermontsavant, I posted a question to Fnord along those lines but it got lost in the ether. Reading just a part of that article triggered my FFF (fight, flight, freeze) big time.

It's easier to attribute the multiplicity of names for the various genders to the variety of cultural interpretations and regional slang for the exact same things.

Just look at the number of English slang words for "Woman".

I see the same reaction coming from people who refuse to believe that certain celebrities who committed suicide were NOT the victims of some global conspiracy to silence them.

If it's literally biology parts = child, then no
If it implies denial of resources ("reasonable" is subjective) to = child, then yes

For crying out loud. You are characterizing everyone advocating for recognition for transgenderism as just getting angry if people state facts. You keep characterizing your opposition like this, but you are not opening your effing ears rather than saying they have no good answers.

Yes, biological sex matters for human reproduction, but the ability to take part in human production does not define biological sex, otherwise women who go through menopause suddenly become less of a woman, or a man who is found sterile is less of a man. Maybe some bigots think those things, but they are not accurate. "Biological sex" is defined by quite a number of things: genitals, secondary sex characteristics, chromosomes, internal reproductive organs and hormones. And any one of those things can be out of step with the others. A girl could have a male level of testosterone, she could have different chromosomes, she might grow a beard or not grow breasts, or have other internal organs not usual for females.

No one is saying that biological sex does not matter for reproduction, but there are other important parts that determine sex, and those things can be changed. You can change genitals, hormones, and alter secondary sex characteristics. Maybe we will eventually do more, but I think those things can be enough to change their sex. I am not going to start defining women and men by whether they can conceive or get one pregnant.

I don't like the idea of messing around with peoples' biology---such as when people use "puberty blockers."

What don't you like about it?

I'm not against trans people at all---let me emphasize that.

I just feel like anything involving hormones or whatever could have bad side effects. Just like the Pill sometimes increases the risk of stroke in women quite a bit.

Trans people have to go through quite a lot when in the process of changing their gender.

You mean, it's easier for you (a white westerner) to attribute the multiplicity of different genders to a (white western) social construct you're familiar with. Your privilege is showing, honey.

Do you not like the idea of people being on the pill?

If your reasoning is that the pill has a very specific purpose of preventing unwanted pregnancies or other medical reasons. Puberty blockers are done to prevent something like gender dysphoria, a medical condition that is recognised, for which the treatment is things like hormone therapy. Blocking the unwanted puberty, at least until an informed decision can be made for the puberty that would avoid dysphoria.

I am not accusing you of this, but one would not have to be "against" trans people to impede their plight.
There is this really good video by Philosophy Tube titled Transphobia: An Analysis, and brings up this really interesting concept called "Yer Dad". The concept of Yer Dad is not necessarily ones actual father, not necessarily male, not have to be older than you, and one can in fact be "Yer Dad". What they are, is say when acceptance of gay people started to be a thing, Yer Dad would say that they have no problem with gay people as long as it is away from them, and later may have even changed that opinion years later after learning that does not fly anymore. The general idea is someone who says and maybe thinks that they are accepting, but there is a tinge of bias.



Again, I am not accusing you of being a Yer Dad, pretty much all the posts I have seen of you are very lovely and open, and clearly that you are worried that these puberty blockers could have some unknown side effects. Many medical procedures through human history have side effects, things that are imperfect in their conception, buy we either improve through trials, or it gets accepted that the benefits outweigh the risks. Being just sceptical in principal to things that alter hormones, could be compared to not liking surgery because you are cutting someone up. Of course it is not entirely comparable because a surgery has a doctor with the knife at all times, but my understanding is that puberty blockers and other hormone therapy has improved a lot. A particular reddit section I often see with a lot of trans people have them very excited to start HRT.

I’m not against anybody being on the Pill. That would be ridiculous.

What resources?

Me too.
It never shuld be an easy decision - it's interfering with natural course of development not without risks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puberty_blocker

If it was about my child, I would probably try different, non-invasive roads first. My culture (at least the subculture I'm living in) has a lot of gender neutral space and all children are encouraged to explore it. When I think of it, the only differences between how I dress and how my husband dresses are: I wear a bra (my boobs are too big for running without a bra) and he sports a beard. We both wear comfortable underwear, sports shoes, trekking pants or jeans, a tee, a sweater or checked shirt, glasses, long hair, no makeup. We are both interested in science and technology, music, arts, philosophy and some outdoor sports. Sex - the roles we take in reproduction - is irrelevant to most of our expression.
I wonder if in such a society a transgender child is even possible. I've never encountered any, despite knowing several tomboys and some girly boys - they operate comfortably enough in this genderless space.

So you are a gender abolitionist? It means that gender should not be a thing.

Might be great if gender is not such a big thing in your culture with fewer signifiers. But I suspect that you might be speaking too much from a position of privilege, and you might not realize what the experience of transgender people. For them it is not about hating to wear certain type of clothes, or wanting to wear certain clothes, it is about knowing in your head that you are a gender that does not match what you were assigned. It is not being genderless, although it can be along with being both genders. It would be like if you were suddenly in the body of your husband, everyone treated you like a man, and I guess apparently say you can make do with genderless spaces, rather than claiming any womanhood.

You are right about roles taken in reproduction being irrelevant in expression, so for that reason you should be supportive of people who choose to express themselves in a way that others think contradicts their reproductive ability. If trans people do focus on expression that seems so strong presentation of a gender, perhaps you should understand that it is the only way they feel like they can be treated like what they know they are.

I guess with a body of my husband I would get enough testosterone to be a man - to think and feel like one. Just like with my body I have enough oxitocin to be a woman.
Yes, I sometimes wondered what kind of man I would be if I were a man. I wouldn't change much. Probably be taller. Would like to get married. I even know what kind of women I would be attracted to.

I'm not sure if I'm a "gender abolitionist". I think drift towards more gender neutral culture is a natural adaptation to low demand for heavy physical labor and limited demand for babies - both results of technological progress. In modern world, most of possible contributions to the society are sex neutral so they should also be gender neutral. And I do keep in my mind a possibility that transpeople may be largely a cultural phenomenon stemming from the culture adapting too slowly (or even resisting to adapt) to the changing situation.

One more thing may also be important: My culture is significantly less sexualized than e.g. US culture. It may make gender neutrality easier here.