The dark side of gender change for minors. Chloe Cole sues doctors and blames Biden.

[Subduction Zone]

Hundreds of trans people regret changing their gender, says trans activist

Detransitioned teens explain why they regret changing genders

Regret after Gender-affirmation Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Prevalence

I think the reversion rate stands at about 4% based on past information I came across. Clearly not a majority.

Not all minors, but it's still there.

And two of your sources appear to be valid ones this time. I am shocked

But yes, there are going to be exceptions. 4% is clearly a rather small percentage but it does show that some thought does have to go into transitioning.

 

[Twilight Hue]

And two of your sources appear to be valid ones this time. I am shocked

But yes, there are going to be exceptions. 4% is clearly a rather small percentage but it does show that some thought does have to go into transitioning.

Exactly. Think of it as possible side effects that comes with the decision to proceed.

Like I put out. Worth considering.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Exactly. Think of it as possible side effects that comes with the decision to proceed.

Like I put out. Worth considering.

There s not too much to consider. At least not for us. If the case of the Chloe is accurate then it only reinforces what is already know, that surgery should be very rare for those under 18. That some will not be happy with transitioning is also known and is really a private matter of those that are undergoing the process. I don't see what there is to discuss among those that have no stake in the matter.

 

[We Never Know]

Yeah, we really gotta put an end to infant circumcisions.

"Circumcision might have various health benefits, including:

• Easier hygiene. Circumcision makes it simpler to wash the penis. However, boys with uncircumcised penises can be taught to wash regularly beneath the foreskin.
• Decreased risk of urinary tract infections. The risk of urinary tract infections in males is low, but these infections are more common in uncircumcised males. Severe infections early in life can lead to kidney problems later.
• Decreased risk of sexually transmitted infections. Circumcised men might have a lower risk of certain sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. Still, safe sexual practices remain essential.
• Prevention of penile problems. Occasionally, the foreskin on an uncircumcised penis can be difficult or impossible to retract (phimosis). This can lead to inflammation of the foreskin or head of the penis.
• Decreased risk of penile cancer. Although cancer of the penis is rare, it's less common in circumcised men. In addition, cervical cancer is less common in the female sexual partners of circumcised men.

Circumcision (male) - Mayo Clinic

 

[Quintessence]

There s not too much to consider. At least not for us. If the case of the Chloe is accurate then it only reinforces what is already know, that surgery should be very rare for those under 18. That some will not be happy with transitioning is also known and is really a private matter of those that are undergoing the process. I don't see what there is to discuss among those that have no stake in the matter.

The main cases where pre-adult surgery might be more important is for intersex children. When I first learned intersex existed in humans I started asking some really pointed questions about why, as a culture, our identity documentation fails to reflect this reality. The short answer is that I live in a culture that denies this type of human diversity. Mainstream American culture mistakenly believes sex is a binary when it isn't. The fact that I didn't even learn about intersex in humans until I was a life science major in college is proof enough of that. I later watched a documentary on intersex children and was kind of appalled that parents usually just... surgically alter their child without their consent to fit into a sex binary instead of letting the child being intersex or decide for themselves later once they have agency. What's interesting is that even with increased awareness about human diversity in sex and gender, I still don't see intersex brought up much.

 

[cladking]

You are free to your opinions and beliefs but I don't view them as qualified expertise.

I'm sorry but I disagree that it's possible in any rational society that anyone's opinion on the mutilation of children's sexual organs requires any sort of expertise.

I lean toward suggesting that the opinion of those in favor should be discounted.

You made a goods point but that's as far as it goes. Perhaps there are specific situations where the child's desires should be paramount but as a rule society, sane society, has never allowed children's' opinions to take precedence over common sense.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Its still legitimate. It involves a minor and an outcome that is something that requires consideration.

No more or less than any other failed medical treatment, amd certainly not to the extent that laymen such as yourself think you know better than the doctors and researchers studying this.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Its still legitimate. It involves a minor and an outcome that is something that requires consideration.

Or, I found one dentist, had him work on my teeth, and a couple years later my new dentist isn't quite yet finished correcting the mistakes, shoddy work and replacing fillings that are cracking and falling out prematurely.

 

[Ella S.]

I'm sorry but I disagree that it's possible in any rational society that anyone's opinion on the mutilation of children's sexual organs requires any sort of expertise.

I think whether life-saving surgery is necessary should include the opinions of medical professionals. Your point here is therefore a form of science denial, which is the opposite of rational.

I think it is unethical to ban life-saving medical intervention. To me, your argument is ethically identical to arguing for the murder of children.

I lean toward suggesting that the opinion of those in favor should be discounted.

This is highly illogical when those opinions are evidence-based and come from experts within the relevant fields.

You made a goods point but that's as far as it goes. Perhaps there are specific situations where the child's desires should be paramount but as a rule society, sane society, has never allowed children's' opinions to take precedence over common sense.

This is a Straw Man. I explicitly told you that, like any other surgery, the responsibility for these decisions ultimately falls upon medical professionals and the parents.

 

[SomeRandom]

"Circumcision might have various health benefits, including:

• Easier hygiene. Circumcision makes it simpler to wash the penis. However, boys with uncircumcised penises can be taught to wash regularly beneath the foreskin.
• Decreased risk of urinary tract infections. The risk of urinary tract infections in males is low, but these infections are more common in uncircumcised males. Severe infections early in life can lead to kidney problems later.
• Decreased risk of sexually transmitted infections. Circumcised men might have a lower risk of certain sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. Still, safe sexual practices remain essential.
• Prevention of penile problems. Occasionally, the foreskin on an uncircumcised penis can be difficult or impossible to retract (phimosis). This can lead to inflammation of the foreskin or head of the penis.
• Decreased risk of penile cancer. Although cancer of the penis is rare, it's less common in circumcised men. In addition, cervical cancer is less common in the female sexual partners of circumcised men.

Circumcision (male) - Mayo Clinic

Yes and surgically altering genitalia in minors also comes with health benefits, in certain scenarios.
For example if someone is born with Swyer Syndrome or XY Gonadal Diegesis (XY chromosomes, external female genitalia and external gonads) the external gonads are typically removed at birth to avoid future complications of (and to allow normal) puberty to occur in the individual.
Not saying a sex change should occur in minors. Just that it is also medically necessary if not at least medically advisable for genital surgery on minors in some circumstances.
Like everything to do with medicine, your mileage will likely vary lol

 

[SomeRandom]

The main cases where pre-adult surgery might be more important is for intersex children. When I first learned intersex existed in humans I started asking some really pointed questions about why, as a culture, our identity documentation fails to reflect this reality. The short answer is that I live in a culture that denies this type of human diversity. Mainstream American culture mistakenly believes sex is a binary when it isn't. The fact that I didn't even learn about intersex in humans until I was a life science major in college is proof enough of that. I later watched a documentary on intersex children and was kind of appalled that parents usually just... surgically alter their child without their consent to fit into a sex binary instead of letting the child being intersex or decide for themselves later once they have agency. What's interesting is that even with increased awareness about human diversity in sex and gender, I still don't see intersex brought up much.

It continues to baffle me just far ahead my crummy public education experience has put even my rudimentary understanding of intersex conditions ahead of what Americans seem to know. Granted it was taught to me in an elective high school subject (after grade 8 you chose either Science or the trade skills, though my high school sort of “specialised” in trade education. So that might be why.) But still.

 

[cladking]

I think whether life-saving surgery is necessary should include the opinions of medical professionals. Your point here is therefore a form of science denial, which is the opposite of rational.

You should check out the scientism thread on the s & r forum.

Science can not address this question.

This is highly illogical when those opinions are evidence-based and come from experts within the relevant fields.

Usually I would grant everyone is entitled to an opinion. However when a doctor stands to profit from mutilating a child's body and sexual organs I'm less inclined to make such a concession.

This is a Straw Man. I explicitly told you that, like any other surgery, the responsibility for these decisions ultimately falls upon medical professionals and the parents.

Yet abortion, assisted suicide, and pain medication for people in intractable pain are all illegal.

The country operates on money and pain relief stifles money flow or hospice care. Aborting fetuses with no brains is offensive to religious people. Medical procedures and medication go in and out of style and the needs of patients take a back seat to the needs of his insurance company. All the while mutilating children for profit is acceptable.

The responsibility for decisions is mostly on the insurance company because they have all the money.

 

[Ella S.]

You should check out the scientism thread on the s & r forum.

Science can not address this question.

Science can address the question of whether a particular medical procedure is healthy for those who undergo it. That's the function of the medical sciences.

Usually I would grant everyone is entitled to an opinion. However when a doctor stands to profit from mutilating a child's body and sexual organs I'm less inclined to make such a concession.

This is a Red Herring and an Ad Hominem.

It's a Red Herring because the root of why these operations are supported is due to the evidence for their efficacy given to us by medical research. It's an Ad Hominem because you're merely accusing people who oppose your position of being greedy, which isn't relevant to what the evidence demonstrates.

Yet abortion, assisted suicide, and pain medication for people in intractable pain are all illegal.

The country operates on money and pain relief stifles money flow or hospice care. Aborting fetuses with no brains is offensive to religious people. Medical procedures and medication go in and out of style and the needs of patients take a back seat to the needs of his insurance company. All the while mutilating children for profit is acceptable.

The responsibility for decisions is mostly on the insurance company because they have all the money.

None of this is relevant to the point that the consequence of denying children life-saving surgery is their deaths. You can call medical procedures mutilation, but it does not change the ethical character of your argument. You are calling for a genocide against transgender children.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You made a goods point but that's as far as it goes. Perhaps there are specific situations where the child's desires should be paramount but as a rule society, sane society, has never allowed children's' opinions to take precedence over common sense.

Traditionally you were considered a full grown adult around 13 when you either had your first period or your balls dropped. Those today who we would consider high schoolers ruled kingdoms and led others to war.
And what is common sense? Please, I do love this debate.

Yet abortion, assisted suicide, and pain medication for people in intractable pain are all illegal.

Mostly no, especially abortion, when a doctor prescribes medications, and those places where human euthanasia is legal.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You should check out the scientism thread on the s & r forum.

Science can not address this question.

No, you got the question wrong. The question you should have been asking yourself is "Is being trans a real thing?" And science can be used to answer that. The answer is that it does appear to be real phenomenon and not based upon 'feelings" . Your attitude reeks of science denial.

Science is a useful tool for this topic since it tells us that it appears to be real. Helping people is by definition not "mutilation".

 

[rational experiences]

In the past men wanted to dress as women.

In that era skin ailments sexual diseases rife also. Painted faces put rouge on bright lipsticks men and women.

Men trans do the same now. Same behaviours grotesque makeup in fact. Not really how a woman was meant to be Idealised.

Is a teaching position. Behaviours of humans changing. Right in front of you.

Men not being allowed pretending to be women was a sexual problem in society only. Had to be reviewed what was considered behaviour and belief and conning another.

As clothing change also alters identification of the self. Just realisations of social problems.

Free will of human rights hence had always been reviewed as a legal precedence as proven.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I like to see all sides addressed, so I put it out there because I'm guessing people like you won't.

Wait...you do?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Usually I would grant everyone is entitled to an opinion. However when a doctor stands to profit from mutilating a child's body and sexual organs I'm less inclined to make such a concession.

And in my worst moods I'm inclined to think lowly of people who think their uneducated opinion matters as much as the experts who study the thing an opinion is being made about, and to see their opinions as lowly enough to stomp on, trash and outright dismiss.
Why? They have the audacity to think their opinions matter and should count towards something despite the fact they make it obvious they have never actually studied the subjection from a scientific (or clinical) perspective.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

"Circumcision might have various health benefits, including:

• Easier hygiene. Circumcision makes it simpler to wash the penis. However, boys with uncircumcised penises can be taught to wash regularly beneath the foreskin.
• Decreased risk of urinary tract infections. The risk of urinary tract infections in males is low, but these infections are more common in uncircumcised males. Severe infections early in life can lead to kidney problems later.
• Decreased risk of sexually transmitted infections. Circumcised men might have a lower risk of certain sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. Still, safe sexual practices remain essential.
• Prevention of penile problems. Occasionally, the foreskin on an uncircumcised penis can be difficult or impossible to retract (phimosis). This can lead to inflammation of the foreskin or head of the penis.
• Decreased risk of penile cancer. Although cancer of the penis is rare, it's less common in circumcised men. In addition, cervical cancer is less common in the female sexual partners of circumcised men.

Circumcision (male) - Mayo Clinic

So should we do appendectomies on kids because of what might happen?
And of course there are some nasty risks of botched circumcision (such as losing the penis).

 

[cladking]

And in my worst moods I'm inclined to think lowly of people who think their uneducated opinion matters as much as the experts who study the thing an opinion is being made about, and to see their opinions as lowly enough to stomp on, trash and outright dismiss.
Why? They have the audacity to think their opinions matter and should count towards something despite the fact they make it obvious they have never actually studied the subjection from a scientific (or clinical) perspective.

I have little doubt you trust Peers too. Or do you wait for the pope to tell you your opinion?