Gender again. Sorry!

[AuroraSaab]

Why do cis people think that trans people should have no skin in the game? These are our lives, our lived experiences, and the bodily autonomy remains with us.

Nobody in their right mind thinks 10 year old children should have bodily autonomy over taking powerful drugs that are not for a health condition but for 'gender identity', a condition for which there is no agreed definition and no reliable means of diagnosing. We don't give children bodily autonomy over tattoos, the age of consent, taking recreational drugs, drinking, or smoking.

Puberty blockers leave children with a myriad of issues from bone density to infertility.

They are not a pause button. 98% of Tavistock children who were given puberty blockers went on to be prescribed cross sex hormones. Puberty blockers cement a trans identity in children that might otherwise resolve their issues.

 

[monkers]

Nobody in their right mind thinks 10 year old children should have bodily autonomy over taking powerful drugs that are not for a health condition but for 'gender identity', a condition for which there is no agreed definition and no reliable means of diagnosing. We don't give children bodily autonomy over tattoos, the age of consent, taking recreational drugs, drinking, or smoking.

Puberty blockers leave children with a myriad of issues from bone density to infertility.

They are not a pause button. 98% of Tavistock children who were given puberty blockers went on to be prescribed cross sex hormones. Puberty blockers cement a trans identity in children that might otherwise resolve their issues.

Give it a rest eh. I didn't say that children of the age of 10 should be given puberty blockers to the age of 16. Neither did I mention tattoos specifically about children. I didn't mention recreational drugs, drinking, or smoking.

You are just off on one as usual.

My bone density is just fine thanks, and when I went for surgery, infertility wasn't on my mind, and if it had been I would have had taken the opportunity for cryopreservation that was offered at the time.

What pbs gave me was a sense of hope for what was otherwise certain to me to be a bleak future. Meds that help preserve life are not 'child abuse'.

 

[monkers]

hey are not a pause button. 98% of Tavistock children who were given puberty blockers went on to be prescribed cross sex hormones. Puberty blockers cement a trans identity in children that might otherwise resolve their issues.

Can you not see the oxymoron within your own writing? ''Not a pause'' juxtaposed with ''went on''. Of cause it is a pause. Cass would laugh at you. Cross sex hormones were rarely used in the UK before the age of 18 though I got mine before by alternative means.

 

[Ianonabike]

On the plus side, they facilitate the migration of souls.

 

[AuroraSaab]

It was discussion on the child puberty blocker trial to which you introduced bodily autonomy.

If adults choose to take hormones that increase their all cause mortality, including heart attack risk, that's legal and therefore up to them.

You continually promote suicidal ideation with your 'trans child or dead child' narrative on here. Hopefully there are no vulnerable children that read this forum.

 

[spen666]

Give it a rest eh. ....

Is that your new way of debating?

 

[bobzmyunkle]

Are puberty blockers not child abuse?

Not if you ask the thousands of trans adults who took prescribed puberty blockers. Yes it would always be child abuse to give puberty blockers to children who did not identify as trans. And regretters? There will always be examples of people who regret procedures they elected for from the holiday romance tattoo, to breast enlargement and breast reduction surgeries. There is a high percentage of regretters from all age groups, so age is not the best of indicating factors.

I used puberty blockers for 27 months. Regrets? None. Regrets if I hadn't taken them - 100% with dire consequences for my future if they had not been available to me.

Puberty blockers are NOT a trans promoting treatment, that would be cross sex hormones. Puberty blockers just create useful delay. They are the mechanism of the necessary process of exercising caution. Their use means that the use of cross sex hormones can be usefully delayed by a couple of years.

What did they do for me? They gave me certainty that I would not face a male puberty unless I changed my mind, in which case I could elect to stop taking them and start a male puberty. Taking puberty blockers means that I do not have a male appearance, no facial hair, no enlarged Adam's apple, no masculine voice, and I have all my own hair.

Encouraging the taking of puberty blockers is as wrong as denying them. Just because there have been cases where trans youth have been prescribed with a lack of due diligence does not score against the use of puberty blockers, but it does score against some clinical practitioners.

I never attended the Tavistock Centre, but it is clear that the system there was overloaded and under-resourced. It was a system failure.

Instead, I went somewhere not under these pressures. My result is 100% positive.

The point here is that everybody hearing the Sex Matters narrative is influenced by that without hearing the balanced view.

Why do cis people think that trans people should have no skin in the game? These are our lives, our lived experiences, and the bodily autonomy remains with us.

No mention of power relationships then?
Child/adult, expert/confused minor.

 

[CXRAndy]

Drugs or surgery

It's child mutilation and definitely abuse, by parents/people who hold influence over extremely vulnerable children with mental/behavioural conditions

 

[monkers]

It was discussion on the child puberty blocker trial to which you introduced bodily autonomy.

If adults choose to take hormones that increase their all cause mortality, including heart attack risk, that's legal and therefore up to them.

You continually promote suicidal ideation with your 'trans child or dead child' narrative on here. Hopefully there are no vulnerable children that read this forum.

I'm not promoting suicide. I think we know that I'm likely the only trans person on here, and if I'm not, then I'm likely the only one who has admitted to mental anguish that led to a point where I said that I didn't care if I lived or died - so not actually what you are claiming. I think you need to exercise more care saying this.

The real difficulty with pbs, is a bit less about when to start them, but when to end them. This is what is at the heart of the Bell case. It is the determination of the correct pathway at the time when pbs are to be withdrawn. This is not a question of age of consent. Bell was age 16 I believe when starting pbs, and 18 when starting hormones, and 22 when elected for 'top surgery'. She had reached the age of consent at each stage. The suggestion is that when the time came to stop the pbs that progression to hormone therapy was the only course. There are two open pathways, to take switch to hormones or not, rather than is often suggested whether to continue pbs or not.

I don't wish to make this all about me, but in this case I am the one with the lived experience. I kept accepting the prescription of pbs before the age of 18 to give the illusion that I was still taking them - I'd actually stopped and was self-medicating with hormones until the blood results showed I was 'cheating' as they put it. At that point, I happily confessed, the clinical decision was to stop the pb prescription and to take clinical control of my hormone regime because I was adamant that nothing was going to stop me. I wasn't so much cheating as knowingly forcing their hand.

I have a great deal of sympathy for Bell, because she ended up in the wrong place. But let's not lose sight of the fact that she was at the age of consent for each medication treatment, and above the age of consent for top surgery. She had two opportunities to stop the progression, at 18 she could have not asked for hormones; at 22 she could have not asked for surgery.

 

[monkers]

Is that your new way of debating.

When posters like you turn up to put unsaid words into people's mouths, the request is not improper.

 

[monkers]

No mention of power relationships then?
Child/adult, expert/confused minor.

That's because I answered a specific question that you asked.

 

[AuroraSaab]

The discussion on the puberty blocker trial is not about Keira Bell. It's about the ethics of giving drugs to 200+ children from age 10. It only follows them in full for 2 years - no in depth, long term follow up to determine medical or psychological outcomes or harms.

If it's just a pause button and normal development resumes afterwards why is one of the requirements of the trial the discussion of fertility preservation? Can 10 year old girls and boys really understand what it means consent to being permanently infertile?

The use of puberty blockers only came about because adult men in the Dutch clinic didn't like how they looked. No kids were clammouring for them until they were told they'd kill themselves if they didn't get them.

They can't reliably diagnose which kids will keep a trans identity as an adult. They have no research that shows any real benefit, despite Cass looking for evidence. They have no idea what the long term harms are. They are setting children off on an irreversible pathway of medicalisation because those men who do persist with a trans identity need there to be 'trans kids'.

 

[monkers]

The discussion on the puberty blocker trial is not about Keira Bell.

Nobody here said it was.

If it's just a pause button and normal development resumes afterwards why is one of the requirements of the trial the discussion of fertility preservation? Can 10 year old girls and boys really understand what it means consent to being permanently infertile?

Nobody here said that a 10 year old can give consent for puberty blockers.

Can 10 year old girls and boys really understand what it means consent to being permanently infertile?

Nobody here said they can.

They can't reliably diagnose which kids will keep a trans identity as an adult.

Nobody here said otherwise if you're still talking about under 10s.

They have no research that shows any real benefit, despite Cass looking for evidence.

Cass downgraded the available evidence to 'low quality' despite everybody telling her that the high quality evidence she craved could never be available. This is because, without using too much of the jargon, you can't create a controlled double blind trial without knowing the subjects actually knowing they are receiving placebos because as soon as their puberty becomes obvious they know they are not on blockers. Then their are the ethical concerns that if you do not block a child's puberty and then they harm themselves in any way, there will be a legal case.

They have no idea what the long term harms are.

This is invention.

They are setting children off on an irreversible pathway of medicalisation

This is more invention.

 

[AuroraSaab]

It's you that introduced her to the discussion.

I know what you think about Keira Bell. You've lied about her and denigrated her previously.

https://ncap.cyclechat.net/threads/gender-again-sorry.273/page-705#post-85879

 

[monkers]

It's you that introduced her to the discussion.

I know what you think about Keira Bell. You've lied about her and denigrated her previously.

https://ncap.cyclechat.net/threads/gender-again-sorry.273/page-705#post-85879

View attachment 13019

You are attempting a distraction.

They are not actually my words and I don't agree with all of it for reasons of legal argument. It's not necessary to go into the legal specifics here, however there is argument about where Gillick and Fraser interact around the question of abortion.

My aunt was a teacher, not a lawyer. Much of safeguarding is grounded in Gillick, so she would have understood Gillick.

What it is correct to say, is what I have already said, the issues around the Bell case are not focused on consent - Bell was both old enough and under the legally required tests thought mature enough to give consent to the treatments she received. Therefore my aunt's point was also a distraction, other than the conditional ''if'' Bell was lying, and for what reason.

To say that she had no choice but to start hormones sounds unlikely. Bell was 18, so the question has to be examined under that lens - does an 18 year old have legal bodily autonomy or not.