You should probably go look at the current state of diagnosis and treatment of gender dysphoria before giving your hot take. If caught and treated early, gender reassignment surgery can work miracles on a child's quality of life. It really shouldn't be seen any differently than other treatable birth defects.
Most people don't realize this either, but I think it's worth mentioning after Alabama passed their new legislation that the common treatment for trans teens is puberty blockers to delay puberty. These puberty blockers were specifically developed for CIS children entering puberty too early (or having other medical issues) and have been used for a long time. They basically help give the children more time to mature before making decisions in either direction.
There hasn’t been nearly enough time for longitudinal studies. We have no idea what treatment, if any, will lead to the greatest lifetime quality of life for children expressing symptoms of gender dysphoria. Nor for that matter do we have any idea why children are experiencing these symptoms are much higher rates.
But how accurate is that diagnosis, are there false positives and how much?
I know, anecdotally, that some homosexual men are gender dysphoric during prepubescent age but grew out of it during puberty, and feel it would have been a mistake to transition at that age.
But this isn't the point of the essay. The point is that asking questions like these would get you branded a heretic by the far left. And acknowledging gender dysphoria would get you branded a heretic by the far right.
Yeah, but there needs to be a point where you can trust that the child didn’t just make it all up and gets fucked for life. I think the age where you can reasonably be sure of that is probably pretty close to the age of adulthood already.
If misdiagnosed, gender reassignment surgery is disasterous on a child's quality of life. So perhaps we should be looking at the number of false diagnoses for gender dysphoria?
Fetal development isn’t a perfect process. XXY embryos, testosterone insensitivity. There might be other manifestations of gender confusion as I’m not a biologist.
The notion that young kids necessarily have a completely formed and stabilized "gender identity" (which is necessary for "trans kids" to even be a meaningful concept) is entirely driven by ideology. It doesn't even pass the most cursory test of plausibility.
Of course it's not necessary for gender identity to be "completely formed and stabilized" to be able to talk about it. Do you think it's meaningless to describe a child as "short" or "tall" because their body is still growing?
Sorry, I don't really get the relevance of that objection.
In everyday life, most of us are happy to accept the "reality" (in whatever philosophical sense you choose to use) of all sorts of personality traits that exist only "in the mind": kindness, eloquence, sense of humor, willpower. If you likewise accept the reality of "gender identity" as a mental trait, then I don't understand why it makes sense to insist that trait is only meaningful when it's "fully formed" -- can we say that about any aspect of our personality?
I don't know if this exact question has ever been scientifically studied, but it seems pretty clear that if you offered people the choice to push a magic button and permanently change their body to the opposite sex, the vast majority of us would pretty confidently say, no, and a small minority of people would be equally confident in answering the opposite way. That's close enough to "objectively measurable" for me.
More to the point, we're talking about children. Should children be allowed to press the magic button?
We don't allow children to make other permanent changes to their bodies in general (and those tend to be stigmatized even with parental consent); and more to GP's point, the majority of children with a desire to be the opposite sex grow out of it.
It does not make sense to me that we question a child's judgment in all other matters except this one. This is important because gender affirming therapy is, medically speaking, nontrivial and not without severe risks.
The left’s current position is that puberty blockers should be available to all kids until they can decide what gender they want to be. They claim there are zero (0) irreversible side effects to puberty blockers.
No drug has no side effects, least of all one that inhibits puberty. Letting a kid make a choice like that - one they can’t possibly understand the consequences of - is worse. Saying we’re doing it so that they don’t commit suicide in the short-term with no regard to their long-term induced infertility? That’s just irresponsible not to talk about.
> The left’s current position is that puberty blockers should be available to all kids until they can decide what gender they want to be.
That couldn't be further from the truth as possible.
It is the right constantly saying they should be 100% banned, with the other side wants more nuance in the discussion.
You'll sure find some wackos with this position to use as a strawman, but that's definitely not "the left". I'm left, and I don't know anyone saying it.
Feel free to provide counterexamples of where you feel this not to be true. The link below details that not only are they wanting open access, but they want insurance coverage as well.
"Access to drugs and procedures" doesn't mean free unrestricted access to "all kids". This is not candy being sold in the supermarket to kids. This all goes trough parents, psychiatrists and other physicians and the healthcare system.
What is the liklihood of the child being confused, mistaken, or later changing their mind? TBH my concern is that liberal parents, excited at the prospect that their little white boy will avoid a lifetime of abuse by transitioning to being a little white girl, will not even preach caution, but will hasten the transition to a better, more protected, identity.
> What is the liklihood of the child being confused, mistaken, or later changing their mind?
Definitely not 100%, but regardless of that: definitely not something I, a neutral part, can answer, let alone groups with an anti-trans/anti-LGBT agenda. This is a case-by-case thing to be decided by professionals.
If you don't recognize that playing life as a middle class white, cis, male is still 'easy mode' compared to literally any other option... I don't know what to tell you.
Psychiatry once regarded gayness as mental illness. The opinions of those who are employed in the industry of trans research should be regarded as potentially ephemeral, as was prescribing opiates for pain. Science makes mistakes. It’s part of the process. One should be wary of the new, if one cares about their patients.
