Are transgender people the gender they say they are?

[John Dule]

You determine whether someone is man or woman, by how they present to you and how that stands against pre supposed assumptions.

Perhaps this is how you make this determination, but this is not true for a majority of people.

[Big Abraham]

You determine whether someone is man or woman, by how they present to you and how that stands against pre supposed assumptions. There's nothing strictly biological about that.

Those "pre supposed assumptions" are still largely grounded in biology.

[If my soul was made of stone]

Prior to the very recent idea that gender exists as something distinct from sex

As hopefully my last comment in this tedious nightmare thread, I want to reiterate that I have mentioned several examples of gender non-conformity prior to the twentieth century that you simply refuse to acknowledge as such. Your insistence that other cultures' understandings thereof has no bearing on the English language makes about as much sense as saying that we shouldn't use any of the copious loanwords in English because they and the concepts they embody don't exist if the English language "as is" doesn't have anything to express those concepts. This sort of cultural chauvinism is exactly what your interlocutors here are decrying, but you blind yourself to it.

[afleitch]

You determine whether someone is man or woman, by how they present to you and how that stands against pre supposed assumptions.

Perhaps this is how you make this determination, but this is not true for a majority of people.

How do you it? What biology of theirs do you need to check?

[John Dule]

Prior to the very recent idea that gender exists as something distinct from sex

As hopefully my last comment in this tedious nightmare thread, I want to reiterate that I have mentioned several examples of gender non-conformity prior to the twentieth century that you simply refuse to acknowledge as such. Your insistence that other cultures' understandings thereof has no bearing on the English language makes about as much sense as saying that we shouldn't use any of the copious loanwords in English because they and the concepts they embody don't exist if the English language "as is" doesn't have anything to express those concepts. This sort of cultural chauvinism is exactly what your interlocutors here are decrying, but you blind yourself to it.

I have yet to hear an example of such an identity in another culture that acts as a close analogue to the transgender experience in modern times.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I think the point was relevant, but it didn't prove your assertion. That would have required other evidence.

I'm not letting you back out of this. You came in hot accusing me of derailing the Harris conversation by bringing up "minutiae" irrelevant from the original point. I showed you that I was following a coherent line of logic directed at substantiating my assertion. You're free to believe that I didn't prove it, but that doesn't change the fact that your accusations were spurious, and I'm not letting this go until you admit so.

At what point in the history of the English language did pronouns not derive directly from biology? Prior to the very recent idea that gender exists as something distinct from sex, I am unaware of any counterexamples.

Uh, they have never derived directly from biology? At most, they've historically derived indirectly from biology, through the mediation of physical appearance and all sorts of other contextual clues that have themselves varied quite a bit. Either way, you're not resolving the fundamental conflation I pointed out. There's a difference between "throughout history people generally assigned people a gender on the basis of physical cues that typically derive from biological sex" and "gender itself is the same as biological sex". One recognizes that this is a fundamentally sociological phenomenon, while the latter devolves right back into essentialism.

Saying "People who are given masculine pronouns are typically biologically male" is an unnecessary overcomplication of the truth. The truth is that-- aside from people with birth defects-- 100% of babies with male chromosomes are assigned male pronouns at birth. This is not some kind of weak correlation that can be waved away as "typically" or "generally" or "one of many factors." Phenotypical sexual dimorphism (the result of chromosomes) has been until very recently the only relevant determining factor in deciding what pronouns to assign to a person. Calling a male baby "he" is as scientifically accurate as calling a cat a "cat." If you want to argue that this objective standard needs revising or has changed in recent years, ok-- but that does not change the fact that the linguistic history of pronouns in the English language derives them directly and solely from biological reality.

This is hysterical. "When you take out all the exceptions, the correlation is 100%!" is somehow a more factual statement that "there is a correlation but it's not 100%"? You have to realize how far you're reaching to take issue with what should be an uncontroversial formulation. And I never said the correlation is weak, we all know it's pretty strong. But the fact that it's not 100% matters when one of us is speaking in such absolute categories.

And the "scientifically accurate" designation of cats is felis cattus. "Cat" is a colloquial world we use for the animal, but it's not a scientific term as such either, and in fact there can be quite a bit of ambiguity around it (do wildcats count as cats? What about bobcats and other closely related felines?).

[John Dule]

I think the point was relevant, but it didn't prove your assertion. That would have required other evidence.

I'm not letting you back out of this. You came in hot accusing me of derailing the Harris conversation by bringing up "minutiae" irrelevant from the original point. I showed you that I was following a coherent line of logic directed at substantiating my assertion. You're free to believe that I didn't prove it, but that doesn't change the fact that your accusations were spurious, and I'm not letting this go until you admit so.

The crux of that conversation drifted from the question of "Is Sam Harris a member of the alt-right?" to "Did Sam Harris make racially charged comments once on his podcast?" I understand the line of reasoning that brought us there, but the topical drift distracted from the fact that the fundamental point of disagreement was not being addressed.

Uh, they have never derived directly from biology? At most, they've historically derived indirectly from biology, through the mediation of physical appearance and all sorts of other contextual clues that have themselves varied quite a bit. Either way, you're not resolving the fundamental conflation I pointed out. There's a difference between "throughout history people generally assigned people a gender on the basis of physical cues that typically derive from biological sex" and "gender itself is the same as biological sex". One recognizes that this is a fundamentally sociological phenomenon, while the latter devolves right back into essentialism.

The idea that parents in the 1700s believed they were "assigning" pronouns to a newborn baby is just absurd. They were not the ones making that determination; nature was. They simply observed the results of the natural process and then applied the appropriate English term to the outcome.

This is hysterical. "When you take out all the exceptions, the correlation is 100%!" is somehow a more factual statement that "there is a correlation but it's not 100%"? You have to realize how far you're reaching to take issue with what should be an uncontroversial formulation. And I never said the correlation is weak, we all know it's pretty strong. But the fact that it's not 100% matters when one of us is speaking in such absolute categories.

But the exceptions we're talking about are the result of birth defects. Again, this is like taking issue with the claim that "Humans are born with two arms"-- it is an objective fact that the human genome provides for certain outcomes, and those outcomes only change as a result of a defect in genetic copying. The fact that the biological causes of gender sometimes make an error does not mean that gender itself is a social construct.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The crux of that conversation drifted from the question of "Is Sam Harris a member of the alt-right?" to "Did Sam Harris make racially charged comments once on his podcast?" I understand the line of reasoning that brought us there, but the topical drift distracted from the fact that the fundamental point of disagreement was not being addressed.

I was addressing the fundamental point of disagreement. I just wasn't addressing it to your satisfaction. Which is fine, but not something you can turn around and fault me for. This is getting ridiculous. Just because your definition of "alt-right" is absurdly restrictive to the point of uselessness (if it just means "online neonazis" we could just say "online neonazis") doesn't mean you get to be the objective arbiter of what constitutes acceptable evidence.

The idea that parents in the 1700s believed they were "assigning" pronouns to a newborn baby is just absurd. They were not the ones making that determination; nature was. They simply observed the results of the natural process and then applied the appropriate English term to the outcome.

And why should the beliefs of 1700s parents get to dictate our modern understanding of gender in 2022, exactly?

But the exceptions we're talking about are the result of birth defects. Again, this is like taking issue with the claim that "Humans are born with two arms"-- it is an objective fact that the human genome provides for certain outcomes, and those outcomes only change as a result of a defect in genetic copying. The fact that the biological causes of gender sometimes make an error does not mean that gender itself is a social construct.

That's not the point I was making? Gender would still be a social construct even if sexual dimorphism was 100%, and it would still be a social construct even if everyone in the world identified with the gender corresponding to their birth sex. The only way to coherently define gender is as a social construct. Otherwise it would just be biological sex, in which case why use two words for the same underlying concept?

It's starting to become evident that you have a problem with social constructs themselves - that is, with the idea that social understandings build on and give meaning to the biological reality. If you're really that opposed to any sort of sociological understanding of the way in which we construct meaning, there's really no point in discussing this.

[Meclazine for Israel]

People are free to live their life and identify however they please.

[John Dule]

The crux of that conversation drifted from the question of "Is Sam Harris a member of the alt-right?" to "Did Sam Harris make racially charged comments once on his podcast?" I understand the line of reasoning that brought us there, but the topical drift distracted from the fact that the fundamental point of disagreement was not being addressed.

I was addressing the fundamental point of disagreement. I just wasn't addressing it to your satisfaction. Which is fine, but not something you can turn around and fault me for. This is getting ridiculous. Just because your definition of "alt-right" is absurdly restrictive to the point of uselessness (if it just means "online neonazis" we could just say "online neonazis") doesn't mean you get to be the objective arbiter of what constitutes acceptable evidence.

I wasn't faulting you for it; I was just observing that when we have these conversations we often wind up exerting herculean efforts to prove minor points that ultimately don't have much bearing on the overarching disagreement. I hadn't heard of Harris' connections to Murray before, and without having heard that podcast, I would agree that his comments sounded racist. That's still several steps away from proving that he is associated with a very specific movement-- a movement that is defined by much more than the paternalistic type of racial science Harris was pushing.

The idea that parents in the 1700s believed they were "assigning" pronouns to a newborn baby is just absurd. They were not the ones making that determination; nature was. They simply observed the results of the natural process and then applied the appropriate English term to the outcome.

And why should the beliefs of 1700s parents get to dictate our modern understanding of gender in 2022, exactly?

The point I was making there is that gender has never been understood as a social construct distinct from biological sex until very recently. My more general contention that this innovation was neither necessary nor useful is not relevant to that point.

That's not the point I was making? Gender would still be a social construct even if sexual dimorphism was 100%, and it would still be a social construct even if everyone in the world identified with the gender corresponding to their birth sex. The only way to coherently define gender is as a social construct. Otherwise it would just be biological sex, in which case why use two words for the same underlying concept?

It's starting to become evident that you have a problem with social constructs themselves - that is, with the idea that social understandings build on and give meaning to the biological reality. If you're really that opposed to any sort of sociological understanding of the way in which we construct meaning, there's really no point in discussing this.

How would you define a "social construct" then? I agree that particular gender roles such as women wearing dresses or men picking up the check on a date are socialized, even if these have their roots in biological causes. However, these are just roles we socially assign to the sexes-- the sexes themselves are the same regardless of the behavior of the person. As I have always understood it, "gender roles" are the changing cultural expressions of "gender," which is synonymous with "sex."

[Antonio the Sixth]

I wasn't faulting you for it; I was just observing that when we have these conversations we often wind up exerting herculean efforts to prove minor points that ultimately don't have much bearing on the overarching disagreement. I hadn't heard of Harris' connections to Murray before, and without having heard that podcast, I would agree that his comments sounded racist. That's still several steps away from proving that he is associated with a very specific movement-- a movement that is defined by much more than the paternalistic type of racial science Harris was pushing.

It sounded a lot like you were accusing me of (either deliberately or out of intellectual sloppiness) deflecting the conversation. If that wasn't the case, then fair enough, but I'd encourage you to be more careful to avoid giving that kind of impression next time.

The point I was making there is that gender has never been understood as a social construct distinct from biological sex until very recently. My more general contention that this innovation was neither necessary nor useful is not relevant to that point.

Yes, I know that's your positions. I already correctly identified that as the key point of contention like a page ago, and explained why that makes you a poor messenger as far pointing out that the discussion is a "linguistic minefield" goes. Fighters in a conflict can't really complain when they walk into minefields.

How would you define a "social construct" then? I agree that particular gender roles such as women wearing dresses or men picking up the check on a date are socialized, even if these have their roots in biological causes. However, these are just roles we socially assign to the sexes-- the sexes themselves are the same regardless of the behavior of the person. As I have always understood it, "gender roles" are the changing cultural expressions of "gender," which is synonymous with "sex."

That's a common enough understanding, but I think it's missing an important piece. "Gender" is best understood as a kind of social connective tissue through which these social roles, norms, and expectations are transmitted. In order for an individual to have gender roles and expectations placed on them, they must first be assigned a gendered identity marker. Society recognizes you as a "man" or as a "woman" - and while, yes, this social recognition is usually the product of one showing the outward signs of being male or female, it remains useful to conceptually distinguish, for the reason I outline below.

The reason why (binary*) trans people are so insistent on being recognized as the gender they identify as isn't because they inherently, objectively are that gender (some of them might take that line, of course, since trans people aren't a hive mind and there's plenty of diversity of approaches within the movement, but I don't think that's a helpful framework). Rather, it's because they've determined that the best way for them to live fulfilling lives within the existing gendered society is to inhabit the roles and expectations corresponding to that gender. And in order to do so, they must first be viewed by society as belonging into that gender. Many of them take a myriad affirmative steps to ensure that happens, of course (hence the whole concern about how much you "pass" - "passing" here indicating your ability to be socially recognized as the gender you want to inhabit). Even when they don't, however, I do think that it's simply the right thing to do to extend such recognition to them to the extent possible. Again, to be very clear, this is a normative position, not a descriptive one. I'm not saying that anyone is "objectively" a given gender, because as far as I'm concerned there's no such thing as "objective gender". The point is that assigning gender based on self-identification rather than based on biological sex is more conducive to a fair society.

*there's a whole other discussion to be had about nonbinary gender expressions, but it's probably best left for another time

[LordLarry]

This is purely a philosophical question that cannot be definitely answered by biology. I consider gender and sex to be identical because to say otherwise requires a lot of unnecessary mental gymnastics. I wish that people would instead agree to disagree on this issue.

[John Dule]

The point I was making there is that gender has never been understood as a social construct distinct from biological sex until very recently. My more general contention that this innovation was neither necessary nor useful is not relevant to that point.

Yes, I know that's your positions. I already correctly identified that as the key point of contention like a page ago, and explained why that makes you a poor messenger as far pointing out that the discussion is a "linguistic minefield" goes. Fighters in a conflict can't really complain when they walk into minefields.

I guess, but I don't think political discussions should use armed combat as their template for acceptable behavior.

That's a common enough understanding, but I think it's missing an important piece. "Gender" is best understood as a kind of social connective tissue through which these social roles, norms, and expectations are transmitted. In order for an individual to have gender roles and expectations placed on them, they must first be assigned a gendered identity marker. Society recognizes you as a "man" or as a "woman" - and while, yes, this social recognition is usually the product of one showing the outward signs of being male or female, it remains useful to conceptually distinguish, for the reason I outline below.

I can understand a social role (like a gender role) and a biological trait (sex). What I can't understand is this amorphous, vague space that "gender" seems to inhabit according to gender theorists. If gender is a social construct, then why do some trans people say it is inborn? If gender is comprised of mutable and changing social norms, then why is gender considered an immutable part of a person's identity? I'm sure you've memorized my litany of gender contradictions by now, so I won't go any further.

The attempt to parse out a difference between biological gender ("sex") and social gender is, in my mind, a failed political project. Even if these things make sense in the academic sphere to people who study this stuff, you must concede that it has not succeeded in winning over the general public or getting them to see things from the perspective of transgenders. Language can only work through broad consensus, and trying to weaponize it by constructing ever-changing terminology that forces speakers to walk on eggshells completely defeats the purpose of communication.

The reason why (binary*) trans people are so insistent on being recognized as the gender they identify as isn't because they inherently, objectively are that gender (some of them might take that line, of course, since trans people aren't a hive mind and there's plenty of diversity of approaches within the movement, but I don't think that's a helpful framework). Rather, it's because they've determined that the best way for them to live fulfilling lives within the existing gendered society is to inhabit the roles and expectations corresponding to that gender. And in order to do so, they must first be viewed by society as belonging into that gender. Many of them take a myriad affirmative steps to ensure that happens, of course (hence the whole concern about how much you "pass" - "passing" here indicating your ability to be socially recognized as the gender you want to inhabit). Even when they don't, however, I do think that it's simply the right thing to do to extend such recognition to them to the extent possible. Again, to be very clear, this is a normative position, not a descriptive one. I'm not saying that anyone is "objectively" a given gender, because as far as I'm concerned there's no such thing as "objective gender". The point is that assigning gender based on self-identification rather than based on biological sex is more conducive to a fair society.

*there's a whole other discussion to be had about nonbinary gender expressions, but it's probably best left for another time

I do agree generally that extending this Hegelian sort of "recognition" to trans people is a simple courtesy. However, to be brutally honest, it makes me sad. The people who extend these courtesies-- by using preferred pronouns, for example-- rarely accept the logical conclusions of the beliefs they espouse. We saw this on Atlas when the poll in this thread received a majority vote, yet a clear majority simultaneously rejected the idea that men can be pregnant. The term "feminine penis" that some people unironically throw around is still met with widespread mockery, even from self-described progressives. Men who say they support trans rights still are reluctant to put their money where their mouth is and actually date trans women. The list goes on. I'm sure you've seen trans Atlas users discuss their insecurities about how others (even their supposed "allies") perceive them. It's clear they've noticed the existence of this gulf between words and beliefs.

This is what courtesies do-- they pay lip service to tolerance and acceptance while masking people's true feelings. Extending weak linguistic courtesies without backing them up through behavior is dangerous to the mental health of a vulnerable population that depends upon recognition and validation from others in order to feel secure in their own body. I fear that doctors and activists are setting up many trans people for failure by implicitly asserting that transitioning will solve their self-image problems, when the other end of that journey may not bring with it the acceptance and recognition they desire. I sincerely hope I'm wrong about this, as I would never wish loneliness or depression upon anyone. Maybe someday gender reassignment will reach levels of technological sophistication that will render this entire debate moot. I hope you understand I'm being honest when I say that day can't come soon enough.

In the meantime though, I have to reject your premise: I think it is wrong to deliberately mislead others about your perception of them. Saying "he" or "she" may be a harmless courtesy-- but I don't think anyone does a trans person any favors by saying these things if they don't actually believe them. Personally, I roll my eyes at the phrase "male pregnancy" and I cannot imagine myself dating a transgender woman. Normally my private views on such a thing wouldn't matter, but apparently transgender people depend upon recognition from people like me in order to feel comfortable about themselves. I don't think people are generally happy if they feel they're being lied to, and they especially aren't happy when others clearly aren't backing their words of support up with genuine action. In this way, I believe that my pushback on this subject is for the best. The lives and mental health of transgender people should not depend upon the opinions of people like me.

[Klobmentum Mutilated Herself]

I fear that doctors and activists are setting up many trans people for failure by implicitly asserting that transitioning will solve their self-image problems, when the other end of that journey may not bring with it the acceptance and recognition they desire.

No doctors or activists say that; they say it will help alleviate the problem, which is true. Literally one of the first things trans people are told by doctors during the consultation process of transitioning is "you know this isn't a magic bullet and you're still going to have dysphoria, right?"

I sincerely hope I'm wrong about this, as I would never wish loneliness or depression upon anyone.

(X) doubt, on account of

Maybe someday gender reassignment will reach levels of technological sophistication that will render this entire debate moot. I hope you understand I'm being honest when I say that day can't come soon enough.

Until we reach that technological sophistication for trans adults, that conversation is already mostly moot for trans youth who are able to start their transition before puberty. If a trans person's body is not ravaged by the process of completing the puberty of their birth sex hormone, if they are able to transition with the hormone of their true gender during the age of puberty, they will not have to experience much of the dysphoria that trans adults will have to face before, during, and after their transition. And they'll save a hell of a lot of money. Trans men won't have to surgically remove their breasts if they never grew. Trans women won't have to zap their skin with lasers if their beards never grew, nor would they have to deal with Adam's apples (or deep voices that are unaffected by hormones after puberty), male-width shoulders, protuding skulls, receded hairline, or other effectivrly permanent effects of puberty that both cause immense dysphoria and visibility out women as being trans.

Note that I'm not advocating for genital surgery for minors. But, aside from genitals, the parts of a transition that cause the most dysphoria and cost the most money to attempt to revert would be totally unnecessary for trans people to deal with if puberty didn't do those things to their bodies in the first place. If hormone therapy start before the completion of puberty, the hormones do all the work except for genital reconstruction (though trans men do grow a quasi-penis; you may take issue with the notion of a feminine penis, but Googleimage search a trans man's clitoris and tell me a masculine clit isn't real). If transitioning starts after puberty, hormones only do so much.

You say that you hope for the day to come where transitioning technology is more sophisticated, but you want to restrict trans people's access to the most sophisticated, effective, and affordable transitioning technology available: the ability to start hormone replacement therapy before completion of puberty.

I don't think people are generally happy if they feel they're being lied to, and they especially aren't happy when others clearly aren't backing their words of support up with genuine action. In this way, I believe that my pushback on this subject is for the best. The lives and mental health of transgender people should not depend upon the opinions of people like me.

Trans people deal with enough sh!t, some of which is life-threatening, on a daily basis that we don't need to be misgendered on top of that — for me it's more of an "are you f-ing sh!tting me" type thing than anything. I have a relatively thick skin with regards to pronouns. For me, even though I know perfectly well that most people do not view me as a real woman, but at least I'm referred to by my pronouns, it saves me from that great annoyance on top of the more severe parts of the trans experience I have to deal with — and when I'm gendered correctly in a context where I wasn't expecting it, you better believe it makes my day. Of course it's different for everyone. But you're not some brave crusader for advocating that people stop using the correct pronouns for trans people, and stuff like that is why I don't give you the benefit of the doubt when you say "I hope you understand I hope more sophisticated advancements in trans healthcare come soon."

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

There have been several studies suggesting that puberty blockers have long-term effects on bone density. The psychological effects of a postponed puberty should also not be ignored (nor, of course, should the effects of actually going through puberty).

Do you have a source for that that  doesn't have an obvious agenda?

[John Dule]

You say that you hope for the day to come where transitioning technology is more sophisticated, but you want to restrict trans people's access to the most sophisticated, effective, and affordable transitioning technology available: the ability to start hormone replacement therapy before completion of puberty.

I'll just respond to this: I said I didn't oppose puberty blockers, so this is not an accurate representation of my position. I don't know how doctors represent these surgeries and hormones to minors, but again, I question the degree to which a minor can weigh the options and give valid, informed consent.

[John Dule]

There have been several studies suggesting that puberty blockers have long-term effects on bone density. The psychological effects of a postponed puberty should also not be ignored (nor, of course, should the effects of actually going through puberty).

Do you have a source for that that  doesn't have an obvious agenda?

How about an organization that actually provides puberty blockers? Lol.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

There have been several studies suggesting that puberty blockers have long-term effects on bone density. The psychological effects of a postponed puberty should also not be ignored (nor, of course, should the effects of actually going through puberty).

Do you have a source for that that  doesn't have an obvious agenda?

How about an organization that actually provides puberty blockers? Lol.

It also says that bone density will increase after you stop taking blockers, and the risks in general aren't any higher than the average psychiatric medication. Your fearmongering about this is misinformed, is the point I'm making.

[John Dule]

There have been several studies suggesting that puberty blockers have long-term effects on bone density. The psychological effects of a postponed puberty should also not be ignored (nor, of course, should the effects of actually going through puberty).

Do you have a source for that that  doesn't have an obvious agenda?

How about an organization that actually provides puberty blockers? Lol.

It also says that bone density will increase after you stop taking blockers, and the risks in general aren't any higher than the average psychiatric medication. Your fearmongering about this is misinformed, is the point I'm making.

You asked if there was evidence that they have negative long-term effects, and I provided you with it. If that's "fearmongering" then I guess I apologize.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

There have been several studies suggesting that puberty blockers have long-term effects on bone density. The psychological effects of a postponed puberty should also not be ignored (nor, of course, should the effects of actually going through puberty).

Do you have a source for that that  doesn't have an obvious agenda?

How about an organization that actually provides puberty blockers? Lol.

It also says that bone density will increase after you stop taking blockers, and the risks in general aren't any higher than the average psychiatric medication. Your fearmongering about this is misinformed, is the point I'm making.

You asked if there was evidence that they have negative long-term effects, and I provided you with it. If that's "fearmongering" then I guess I apologize.

Effects that reverse once you stop taking the drug aren't the kind of thing I was talking about. Though yes, that is a negative effect. Those negative effects are not large enough to justify just how risky you seem to think puberty blockers are.

[Klobmentum Mutilated Herself]

You say that you hope for the day to come where transitioning technology is more sophisticated, but you want to restrict trans people's access to the most sophisticated, effective, and affordable transitioning technology available: the ability to start hormone replacement therapy before completion of puberty.

I'll just respond to this: I said I didn't oppose puberty blockers, so this is not an accurate representation of my position. I don't know how doctors represent these surgeries and hormones to minors, but again, I question the degree to which a minor can weigh the options and give valid, informed consent.

You oppose true hormone replacement therapy, though; i.e., testosterone for transmasculine people and estrogen for transfeminine people. You say you hope to see the say where trans healthcare is more sophisticated, but oppose the most sophisticate, effective, and affordable tool we have, which is HRT before the completion of puberty. If you think a minor can consent to puberty blockers, it's inconsistent to say that they can't consent to HRT. This is a medical treatment for a medical condition, not a recreational activity. Trans people are trans before they're 18.

[John Dule]

Effects that reverse once you stop taking the drug aren't the kind of thing I was talking about. Though yes, that is a negative effect. Those negative effects are not large enough to justify just how risky you seem to think puberty blockers are.

I don't think they're particularly risky. If I did, I wouldn't want them to be legal (which I do).

You oppose true hormone replacement therapy, though; i.e., testosterone for transmasculine people and estrogen for transfeminine people. You say you hope to see the say where trans healthcare is more sophisticated, but oppose the most sophisticate, effective, and affordable tool we have, which is HRT before the completion of puberty. If you think a minor can consent to puberty blockers, it's inconsistent to say that they can't consent to HRT. This is a medical treatment for a medical condition, not a recreational activity. Trans people are trans before they're 18.

HRT has permanent effects on the body, whereas puberty blockers only have debatable debilitating side effects.

[Person Man]

Yes, unless you are Mr. Garrison and think that women without their organs should get AIDS test.

[Klobmentum Mutilated Herself]

HRT has permanent effects on the body, whereas puberty blockers only have debatable debilitating side effects.

Puberty has permanent effects on the body. If you're fine with forcing trans people to go through with puberty and deal with those permanent effects for the rest of their lives, then I don't believe you when you say you long for the day when trans healthcare is more sophisticated, and I don't think you're arguing in good faith when you start talking about trans voices to other trans people.

[John Dule]

HRT has permanent effects on the body, whereas puberty blockers only have debatable debilitating side effects.

Puberty has permanent effects on the body. If you're fine with forcing trans people to go through with puberty and deal with those permanent effects for the rest of their lives, then I don't believe you when you say you long for the day when trans healthcare is more sophisticated, and I don't think you're arguing in good faith when you start talking about trans voices to other trans people.

But I said I was fine with puberty blockers. What exactly are you mad at me about?