Gender reassignment/affirming surgery

[Guitar's Cry]

Laws are in place. consequential, life-changing decisions are being made. These "gender identification" laws were rushed into existence and they are poorly thought out. In the name of what "inclusivity"? Kids are getting sterilized and maimed, women are being raped and assaulted in other ways, women are having their sports ruined, all in the name of this ill-defined "gender" ideology. And we're just supposed to allow this ideological, activist movement take its time being sorted out?

Are there laws forcing kids to get sterilized and maimed, and allow women to be raped and assaulted, and that are designed to ruin women's sports?

Or, are there laws that allow for people's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and there are bad actors like there are in every group?

Do you all those things are happening at such a level that we shouldn't have laws that allow such things as people working in environments free from harassment and discrimination?

Actually, your definition is closely aligned with the LEGAL definitions provided by the four states I mentioned earlier. You're all basically agreeing on the same non-definitions.

Not really. None of those definitions seem to be referring to social constructs based around traditional ways of categorizing people based on appearance and social relationships.

Sounds to me like you're describing "personalities". In what ways do you think your definitions are different than just saying "we all have different personalities"?

Personality is too broad. It deals with a host of things that may not even relate to someone's identity.

Perhaps we're discussing this from different contexts? I'm coming from the context of laws and public policies. I'm not sure why - in a personal one on one situation - I'd ever ask a person what their gender is?

You seem more interested in connecting laws that deal with anti-discrimination in the workplace and housing with things like gender reassignment surgery and rape.

Again, define a "gender based social role".

Any social role that deals with categorizing people according to traditional values related to their physical appearance, previously genitalia, though I hesitate to include that in definitions because it is not necessary to advertise genitalia in our modern society.

And when you say everything will be based on biology, well, yes, that's how it's always been for many consequential aspects of life. If a patient is in the ER, the doctors do not care what gender the patient is - it's often crucial to know what sex the patient is.

So, when biological sex is crucial to a situation, there are scientific ways to learn an individuals sex. And when it's not crucial, how does thinking in terms of "gender" help? Again, we all already understand the idea of personalities - how does this seemingly nebulous idea of "gender" help?

It may not matter in the future. But for now, it is pretty clear that traditional ways of categorizing people this way are still being practiced. I can foresee a society where "gender" is irrelevant and people just treat people like people. I am glad you can too!

My partner has recently been taking on a non-binary identity. They still refer to themselves as female in some contexts, but has said they feel more "authentic" and "genuine" as not being gendered at all. I have heard the same from a friend who was assigned female at birth but transitioned to male years ago. So for now, gender still plays a part in how people define themselves. And society does this as well.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I do agree with him a lot of it is to help normies and neurotypicals feel more comfortable around those with more noticeable physical and mental handicaps. I do agree that speech codes won't really address or fix the problem. It's one of.his harsher bits, but parts of it are similar to things mentioned by Foucault in Madness and Society.

I haven't read Foucault, but I understand the argument. As a teacher, I am trained to use "person first" language for students with disabilities. For instance, "a student with blindness" rather than a "blind student." In practice, though, I find most students with disabilities prefer being disabled students for one reason or another.

As a person who isn't disabled, I can see both sides. A person is more than a single aspect of themselves, but that single aspect can have profound impact on their identity both self and social with a myriad ways in which that aspect can be perceived both positively and negatively.

My problem with Carlin here (and there's plenty I agree with when it comes to Carlin) is that his examples fall flat for me in that they are either ridiculously ignorant of the context and consequences (like referring to students with slow processing as stupid) or outdated (like referring to handicapped people as physically defective), which makes me suspect this is the comedy part of his presentation. It makes it easy for people who want to weaponize "political correctness" as an excuse to be bullies.

Quoting Carlin in this way is the equivalent of my students saying they should be allowed to say "that's gay" or "that's retarded" when referring to something they don't like because the former originally meant "happy" and the latter originally meant "slow" or "behind." It misses the point entirely.

 

[LadyJane]

It makes it easy for people who want to weaponize "political correctness" as an excuse to be bullies.

This is it exactly. Freedom of speech is something to fight for, not hide behind. And talented comedians are creative enough to adapt to language as it changes. That was Carlin's forte.

 

[icehorse]

Are there laws forcing kids to get sterilized and maimed, and allow women to be raped and assaulted, and that are designed to ruin women's sports?

Or, are there laws that allow for people's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and there are bad actors like there are in every group?

Do you all those things are happening at such a level that we shouldn't have laws that allow such things as people working in environments free from harassment and discrimination?

The so-called "gender affirming care" protocol was created by activists (WPATH), and has no good quality evidence to support it. As is the case in much of medicine, doctors cannot specialize in everything so they rely on other specialists to provide protocols for specific conditions. Doctors and medical organizations relied on WPATH, but WPATH sold them dangerous, unproven protocols. The result is that confused kids have been getting maimed and sterilized for no good reason.

These "gender identity" definitions are a facet of the whole "gender self identification" movement, which is making it much easier for misogynists to rape and assault women and to ruin women's sports.

Yes, we want to allow people their freedoms. But we should expose bad laws that are needlessly zero-sum, as these "gender identity" laws are.

 

[icehorse]

Personality is too broad. It deals with a host of things that may not even relate to someone's identity.

This is all about "gender identity". So in this context, what would be an example of a thing that doesn't relate to someone's identity?

You seem more interested in connecting laws that deal with anti-discrimination in the workplace and housing with things like gender reassignment surgery and rape.

I'm concerned with all the ways in which the religion of "gender identity" is being used by misogynists.

My partner has recently been taking on a non-binary identity. They still refer to themselves as female in some contexts, but has said they feel more "authentic" and "genuine" as not being gendered at all. I have heard the same from a friend who was assigned female at birth but transitioned to male years ago. So for now, gender still plays a part in how people define themselves. And society does this as well.

I'm sincerely happy for you and your partner. But that sounds like it's at a personal level. Like religion, whatever a person wants to think about their "gender identity" at home is fine. But activists are twisting "gender ideology" to maim confused kids and get away with - often violent - misogyny.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

The so-called "gender affirming care" protocol was created by activists (WPATH), and has no good quality evidence to support it. As is the case in much of medicine, doctors cannot specialize in everything so they rely on other specialists to provide protocols for specific conditions. Doctors and medical organizations relied on WPATH, but WPATH sold them dangerous, unproven protocols. The result is that confused kids have been getting maimed and sterilized for no good reason.

Are they? At what rate? I am given to understand surgery is extremely rare under the age of 18:

"The ultimate step in gender-affirming medical treatment is surgery, which is uncommon in patients under age 18. Some children’s hospitals and gender clinics don’t offer surgery to minors, requiring that they be adults before deciding on procedures that are irreversible and carry a heightened risk of complications.

The Komodo analysis of insurance claims found 56 genital surgeries among patients ages 13 to 17 with a prior gender dysphoria diagnosis from 2019 to 2021. Among teens, “top surgery” to remove breasts is more common. In the three years ending in 2021, at least 776 mastectomies were performed in the United States on patients ages 13 to 17 with a gender dysphoria diagnosis, according to Komodo’s data analysis of insurance claims. This tally does not include procedures that were paid for out of pocket."

Number of transgender children seeking treatment surges in U.S.

About 42,000 U.S. children ages 6 to 17 were diagnosed with gender dysphoria in 2021, nearly triple the number in 2017, a unique data analysis for Reuters found.

www.reuters.com

These "gender identity" definitions are a facet of the whole "gender self identification" movement, which is making it much easier for misogynists to rape and assault women and to ruin women's sports.

How? I suspect the assault is based around bathrooms, but a rapist doesn't need to dress as a woman to assault a woman. I've never seen a woman's bathroom with a lock and gaurd making sure no men enter. I've accidentally gone into women's bathrooms before. No alarms sounded. Anyone, regardless of how they look can enter a bathroom. I also have known and seen plenty of males and females with ambiguous gender; one has a hard time telling what's under their clothes. Ought their genetials be checked lest they be using the wrong bathroom?

And do you believe that person, hateful of women and excelling at a particular sport, would go to the length of identifying as their hated foe in order to win a championship? It might happen, but I seriously doubt it will be so common as to end women's sports.

Yes, we want to allow people their freedoms. But we should expose bad laws that are needlessly zero-sum, as these "gender identity" laws are.

Even if we assume a bad definition, are anti-discrimination laws like this that protect people in the workplace and in housing really bad? Aren't they enhancing freedoms than than suppressing them?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

This is all about "gender identity". So in this context, what would be an example of a thing that doesn't relate to someone's identity?

A person may have a positive outlook that is unrelated to gender but a part of their personality. They may be angry or ill-tempered. They may be active. They may lazy. They may be classy or a lummux (I am very lummuxy myself!) or forthright.

In other words, personality is far too broad to define gender identity as just personality.

I'm concerned with all the ways in which the religion of "gender identity" is being used by misogynists.

Okay. But in this case you are connecting anti-discrimination laws with an increase in rape and gender-affirming medical interventions.

I'm sincerely happy for you and your partner.

Thanks!

But that sounds like it's at a personal level. Like religion, whatever a person wants to think about their "gender identity" at home is fine. But activists are twisting "gender ideology" to maim confused kids and get away with - often violent - misogyny.

That seems like an hyperbole; a caricature of trans activists as insane people wanting kids and females to suffer. I am unconvinced that this is the reality.

 

[icehorse]

Are they? At what rate? I am given to understand surgery is extremely rare under the age of 18:

Before surgeries come puberty blockers, then cross-sex hormones. These drugs often maim and sterilize patients.

How? I suspect the assault is based around bathrooms, but a rapist doesn't need to dress as a woman to assault a woman. I've never seen a woman's bathroom with a lock and gaurd making sure no men enter. I've accidentally gone into women's bathrooms before. No alarms sounded. Anyone, regardless of how they look can enter a bathroom. I also have known and seen plenty of males and females with ambiguous gender; one has a hard time telling what's under their clothes. Ought their genetials be checked lest they be using the wrong bathroom?

Bathrooms, locker rooms, safe houses, prisons, healthcare facilities and so on. ALL women's safe spaces are being invaded by bad men using "gender self ID" as a way to ease their access.

This is not about "genital inspections" (I'm soooo tired of that strawman), it's about normalizing people who look like men gaining access to women's safe spaces.

And do you believe that person, hateful of women and excelling at a particular sport, would go to the length of identifying as their hated foe in order to win a championship? It might happen, but I seriously doubt it will be so common as to end women's sports.

shewon.org

Even if we assume a bad definition, are anti-discrimination laws like this that protect people in the workplace and in housing really bad? Aren't they enhancing freedoms than than suppressing them?

Often these laws are well intended. But if they are poorly worded they can create problems. Gender ideology is damaging our society much more then it's helping reduce discrimination.

 

[icehorse]

A person may have a positive outlook that is unrelated to gender but a part of their personality. They may be angry or ill-tempered. They may be active. They may lazy. They may be classy or a lummux (I am very lummuxy myself!) or forthright.

In other words, personality is far too broad to define gender identity as just personality.

I'm happy to agree that "personality" is a broad, umbrella term. It can include, but not be limited to outward expressions and sexual orientation.

Okay. But in this case you are connecting anti-discrimination laws with an increase in rape and gender-affirming medical interventions.

Because they are connected. These poor definitions have wide ranging legal implications, beyond just anti-discrimination.

That seems like an hyperbole; a caricature of trans activists as insane people wanting kids and females to suffer. I am unconvinced that this is the reality.

I'm glad you said "trans activists", thanks. But sadly, many trans activists are truly bad actors. For example, some members of WPATH have eunuch fetishes. This can be verified if you study the WPATH SOC, version 7.

Gender Affirming Care is systematically being exposed, and I think will go down in history as a major medical scandal. Why this was allowed to happen is complex, but in the meantime GAC is doing irreparable harm to kids every day.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Before surgeries come puberty blockers, then cross-sex hormones. These drugs often maim and sterilize patients.

Again, small percentage of the population, and you are overstating the risks. The side effects may include decreased fertility, but that is hardly maiming and sterilization is not an inevitability but a risk. The risks are still being researched, but we can assume given the contradictory studies that there's some risk, but this is always true with medical interventions.

Some of the stats from the previous source:

"Over the last five years, there were at least 4,780 adolescents who started on puberty blockers and had a prior gender dysphoria diagnosis.

[...]

At least 14,726 minors started hormone treatment with a prior gender dysphoria diagnosis from 2017 through 2021, according to the Komodo analysis."

Number of transgender children seeking treatment surges in U.S.

About 42,000 U.S. children ages 6 to 17 were diagnosed with gender dysphoria in 2021, nearly triple the number in 2017, a unique data analysis for Reuters found.

www.reuters.com

Bathrooms, locker rooms, safe houses, prisons, healthcare facilities and so on. ALL women's safe spaces are being invaded by bad men using "gender self ID" as a way to ease their access.

How widespread is this? It doesn't make sense for a man to go to great lengths such as changing their gender identity when they could simply walk into a locker room or bathroom and do the same thing.

Prisons, healthcare facilities, and safe houses may be different but this just increases the level of difficulty for the abuser.

This is not about "genital inspections" (I'm soooo tired of that strawman), it's about normalizing people who look like men gaining access to women's safe spaces.

But that's the point, since:

-women also assault other women
-there are women who can easily pass as men
-there is nothing preventing men from entering places like bathrooms and locker rooms

So aside from having genital inspections or some sort of special genital id card or system of access for females only, men don't need to dress as women to access these places. Sorry you are tired of this, but this is hardly a strawman argument when it points out that major flaw in the "men dressing up as women to assault women in bathrooms" argument.

shewon.org

How is this an argument for the ruination of women's sports?

Often these laws are well intended. But if they are poorly worded they can create problems. Gender ideology is damaging our society much more then it's helping reduce discrimination.

You can have the ideology of "gender ideology is damaging our society" but I am uncertain how. Also, I am uncertain how poorly worded laws to prevent discrimination against people who don't follow traditional gender identity creates problems.

I'm happy to agree that "personality" is a broad, umbrella term. It can include, but not be limited to outward expressions and sexual orientation.


Because they are connected. These poor definitions have wide ranging legal implications, beyond just anti-discrimination.

Such as?

I'm glad you said "trans activists", thanks. But sadly, many trans activists are truly bad actors. For example, some members of WPATH have eunuch fetishes. This can be verified if you study the WPATH SOC, version 7.

For clarity, when I refer to "trans activists" I am referring to those that advocate for transgender rights. This is something I do.

Could you link to your referenced material? I am sure there are bad actors. There are bad eggs in every crowd. That doesn't change the fact that in a modern secular free society, transgender folks ought not be discriminated against.

Gender Affirming Care is systematically being exposed, and I think will go down in history as a major medical scandal. Why this was allowed to happen is complex, but in the meantime GAC is doing irreparable harm to kids every day.

If it is a medical scandal then I hope it is exposed. But, given the statistics, I don't think this is an epidemic of kids being irreparably harmed.

 

[icehorse]

Again, small percentage of the population, and you are overstating the risks. The side effects may include decreased fertility, but that is hardly maiming and sterilization is not an inevitability but a risk. The risks are still being researched, but we can assume given the contradictory studies that there's some risk, but this is always true with medical interventions.

Take a look at the WPATH files and the newly released Cass report. With all due respect, you seem to be working from old data.

And since when do we give people drugs if we're still researching the risks? And since when do we give people dangerous drugs when we have no evidence of their efficacy?

How is this an argument for the ruination of women's sports?

did you take a look at the page I provided a link to?

Also, I am uncertain how poorly worded laws to prevent discrimination against people who don't follow traditional gender identity creates problems.

This what we've been discussing. Allowing bad men into women's safe spaces. Allowing men to ruin women's sports. Allowing men to take jobs reserved for women. Allowing activists to attempt to curtail speech.

For clarity, when I refer to "trans activists" I am referring to those that advocate for transgender rights. This is something I do.

Could you link to your referenced material? I am sure there are bad actors. There are bad eggs in every crowd. That doesn't change the fact that in a modern secular free society, transgender folks ought not be discriminated against.

Again, I agree with you that we should fight discrimination. I hope I've made that clear several times now?

But the problem is that in this case the solutions are poorly thought out and are causing a host of misogynistic side effects. These solutions are zero-sum and they don't have to be.

So yes! Fight discrimination, I'm with you. But not at the expense of women and girls.

If it is a medical scandal then I hope it is exposed. But, given the statistics, I don't think this is an epidemic of kids being irreparably harmed.

Again, you're working from old information. Check out the WPATH files and the Cass report.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

My problem with Carlin here (and there's plenty I agree with when it comes to Carlin) is that his examples fall flat for me in that they are either ridiculously ignorant of the context and consequences (like referring to students with slow processing as stupid) or outdated (like referring to handicapped people as physically defective), which makes me suspect this is the comedy part of his presentation. It makes it easy for people who want to weaponize "political correctness" as an excuse to be bullies.

Yeah. Probably, like his list of people who should be killed. Looking up to him it stung hearing "people who are depressed," but it was aimed at those who say they are but probably wouldn't qualify for a clinical diagnosis.
And it was funny when he said something like you're white. It's not your job to have the blues it's your job to give people the blues.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I thought the gender affirming care community would have jumped all over this.

Gender affirming care is the political way to refer to hormone treatment and sex reassignment surgery. My short answer is simply that given 2/3 of kids who have gender dysphoria in their teens have grown out of it by age 26, that is is reprehensible to do these permanently body altering procedures on children when the odds are going to be that many will later regret it. Adults on the other hand are a different story. We have to allow adults to do with their bodies as they wish.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

My short answer is simply that given 2/3 of kids who have gender dysphoria in their teens have grown out of it by age 26,

I would need to see a source on this to verify this claim, especially considering that it conflates being trans and having gender dysphoria, which are two very different things. Not all people who have GD are trans, and not all treatments for GD involve any kind of transition.

It's kind of like arguing that most lumps found on the body are benign and non-cancerous, therefore we need to be much more selective about who we treat for cancer, ignoring the fact that we don't treat all bodily lumps as cancerous, and to ignore the selective process that determines which lumps are or aren't cancerous and what treatment should be applied to the ones that are.

that is is reprehensible to do these permanently body altering procedures on children

They aren't performing "permanently body altering procedures" on children. That's not a thing that's happening.

when the odds are going to be that many will later regret it.

Statistically speaking, medical transition shows significantly lower regret rates than many other common and uncontroversial surgeries; around 1%.
SOURCE: Regret after Gender-affirmation Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Prevalence

For comparison, regret rates for knee replacement surgery are around 18%, and regret rates for breast cancer treatments are around 42%.
SOURCES: Patients’ experiences of discontentment one year after total knee arthroplasty- a qualitative study, POST-TREATMENT REGRET AMONG YOUNG BREAST CANCER SURVIVORS

Adults on the other hand are a different story. We have to allow adults to do with their bodies as they wish.

Good. So you have no issues with the ways in which gender affirming care is currently conducted?

 

[Ignatius A]

Gender affirming care is the political way to refer to hormone treatment and sex reassignment surgery. My short answer is simply that given 2/3 of kids who have gender dysphoria in their teens have grown out of it by age 26, that is is reprehensible to do these permanently body altering procedures on children when the odds are going to be that many will later regret it. Adults on the other hand are a different story. We have to allow adults to do with their bodies as they wish.

So a 25 y.o. 5'5" 98 lb woman who goes to her doctor for a diet plan to lose weight because she thinks she's "fat" should be given such a diet plan because "We HAVE TO(my emphasis) allow adults to do with their bodies as they wish". Excellent.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I would need to see a source on this to verify this claim

In the Dutch study researchers tracked 2,700 children over the course of 15 years. They found that 11% of kids were struggling with their gender in early adolescence.

But by the age of 26, that number plummeted to 4% because, as the researchers note, “gender non-contentedness, while being relatively common during early adolescence, in general decreases with age.”

We were pushed to transition as teens — now we’re ‘vindicated’ by study showing kids grow out of it

“I do think we’re at the start of a pendulum swing back,” one detransitioner told The Post. “It just sucks that so many people had to suffer.”

nypost.com

They aren't performing "permanently body altering procedures" on children. That's not a thing that's happening.

It absolutely is happening. These "gender affirming" clinics use hormones and surgery on MINORS. And they lie and say it can be reversed when in fact there are affects that cannot be reversed.

Puberty blockers prevent the maturation of the brain and effects brain structure, impacting the intellect and social development.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/apa.17150#:~:text=The%20results%20from%20these%20studies,of%20sex%2Dspecific%20differences%20in

"Voice deepening, facial hair growth, body hair growth, clitoral growth, and pattern baldness are all permanent results of testosterone-based HRT. Breast growth, decreased testicular volume, and (potentially) sperm production are permanent results of estrogen-based HRT"

What Changes Does HRT Make to Your Body During Transition?

When taking HRT for gender affirming care, the changes you experience are similar to those that cis people experience during puberty. Let's look deeper.

www.healthline.com

The permanent impact of surgeries is obvious. You can't really reattach breasts or a male member.

And for kids who stick with being trans? There are no well done studies confirming that these procedures don't harm. This is why both the UK and Scotland have recently put a halt to "gender affirming care" for kids.
“In England, they've declared that there could be no gender-affirming care other than therapy for children because the scientific proof is not there,” Gossage said

England is limiting gender transitions for youths. US legislators are watching

Legislators in at least two U.S. states are citing the decision as support for their own related proposals.

apnews.com

 

[ImmortalFlame]

In the Dutch study researchers tracked 2,700 children over the course of 15 years. They found that 11% of kids were struggling with their gender in early adolescence.

But by the age of 26, that number plummeted to 4% because, as the researchers note, “gender non-contentedness, while being relatively common during early adolescence, in general decreases with age.”

We were pushed to transition as teens — now we’re ‘vindicated’ by study showing kids grow out of it

“I do think we’re at the start of a pendulum swing back,” one detransitioner told The Post. “It just sucks that so many people had to suffer.”

nypost.com

Right, so it's as I thought. It's "gender non-contentedness", not necessarily "gender dysphoria", and they weren't all treated with GAC. This article is also claiming that there is a "ban" on puberty blockers in the UK - which is patently and blatantly false. It also falsely states that "gender dysphoria" is "a desire to be the opposite sex". This is also patently and blatantly false.

I suggest you find better sources.

It absolutely is happening. These "gender affirming" clinics use hormones and surgery on MINORS. And they lie and say it can be reversed when in fact there are affects that cannot be reversed.

Puberty blockers prevent the maturation of the brain and effects brain structure, impacting the intellect and social development.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/apa.17150#:~:text=The%20results%20from%20these%20studies,of%20sex%2Dspecific%20differences%20in

Which can be reversed by stopping puberty blockers and having a normal puberty. Those aren't permanent, nor are they "surgery".

"Voice deepening, facial hair growth, body hair growth, clitoral growth, and pattern baldness are all permanent results of testosterone-based HRT. Breast growth, decreased testicular volume, and (potentially) sperm production are permanent results of estrogen-based HRT"

What Changes Does HRT Make to Your Body During Transition?

When taking HRT for gender affirming care, the changes you experience are similar to those that cis people experience during puberty. Let's look deeper.

www.healthline.com

HRT and puberty blockers aren't the same thing. Children are not being given HRT.

The permanent impact of surgeries is obvious. You can't really reattach breasts or a male member.

And what surgeries are being performed on minors?

And for kids who stick with being trans? There are no well done studies confirming that these procedures don't harm.

"Well done" is doing some heavy lifting, there. There are plenty of studies into trans regret rates, they're fairly unanimous in their results. And the phrase "don't harm" is fairly vague as well. Most forms of medical care have some form of negative impact, but you wouldn't use that as an argument against using them when they are prescribed. Like I pointed out, regret rates for hip replacement and breast cancer surgery are significantly higher than regret rates for GAC, but you wouldn't use that to support the argument that these procedures therefore shouldn't be carried out when necessary.

This is why both the UK and Scotland have recently put a halt to "gender affirming care" for kids.

This is simply not true. Even the link you've provided contradicts this. They're just reviewing the process and availability of puberty blockers for children. They are not "putting a halt" to GAC. And it's largely because of the fears of people like you, conflating gender dysphoria and being trans, not knowing the difference between HRT and puberty blockers, and making outright false claims like that surgery is being performed on youths. Nor is this nation-wide. It's just about its availability on the NHS, and it has as much to with access to the drugs as it does to any actual care for minors; of whom, there are less than 100 in the UK who are actually on them.

“In England, they've declared that there could be no gender-affirming care other than therapy for children because the scientific proof is not there,” Gossage said

England is limiting gender transitions for youths. US legislators are watching

Legislators in at least two U.S. states are citing the decision as support for their own related proposals.

apnews.com

This is obviously pretty sensationalist and exaggerated reporting. Gossage is just lying, here.

 

[icehorse]

Right, so it's as I thought. It's "gender non-contentedness", not necessarily "gender dysphoria", and they weren't all treated with GAC. This article is also claiming that there is a "ban" on puberty blockers in the UK - which is patently and blatantly false. It also falsely states that "gender dysphoria" is "a desire to be the opposite sex". This is also patently and blatantly false.

I suggest you find better sources.

Read the newly released Cass report. Read the WPATH files. These are both the most up to date sources.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Read the newly released Cass report.

Already have. It's garbage.

Read the WPATH files. These are both the most up to date sources.

Sure they are. And not biased at all.

You also need better sources.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

This article is also claiming that there is a "ban" on puberty blockers in the UK - which is patently and blatantly false.

Oh puhleeze. It's not like it is just one articles. There are many many articles saying the exact same thing. Maybe you simply need to concede the point.

HRT and puberty blockers aren't the same thing. Children are not being given HRT.

Yes, they are.

And what surgeries are being performed on minors?

Although these surgeries are less common, they do happen. A transgender boy can get a mastectomy at a gender affirming clinic, for example. Bottom surgery is of course less common than top surgery, but it also occurs.

This is obviously pretty sensationalist and exaggerated reporting. Gossage is just lying, here.

Considering that the media is pretty left in its bias, and very affirming of the transgender movement, I would say the very fact that these stories are even running is a very good indication that they are accurate.

Think about it.

There is a transgender woman who appeared on Dr Phil. She wanted to help transgender youths, and went to work at a clinic for gender affirming care. On the show, she reveals the truth of what goes on there, and the lies that parents are told. Dr Phil's streaming website is www.meritplus.com Watching is free, although you have to form an account. This specific video is on Dr Phil Primetime, under the title of "The Whistleblowers; How Young is Too Young to Transition?"