Drag Story time

[EKS]

16 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

A lot of these laws are making that harder though.  They are making “non confirming” MORE difficult than it is for trans people who “pass”.   The laws really reinforce very gendered stereotypes.  

I don’t know what laws you’re talking about so I guess I can’t comment.

[Heartstrings]

4 minutes ago, EKS said:

I don’t know what laws you’re talking about so I guess I can’t comment.

Laws against trans people using the bathroom of their perceived gender for example.   A trans woman in a dress with make up, who fully passes, is safer using the womens bathroom than a woman with tiny breasts, short hair cut and basketball shorts who looks more masculine.  The person who is conforming to gender stereotypes would be less likely to be questioned or harassed walking into the bathroom.   

[lewelma]

I thought some of you may be interested in what the NZ national health care ministry says about transgender care. This is from their website that also has info on puberty blockers  https://www.tewhatuora.govt.nz/keeping-well/transgender-new-zealanders

Different gender identities
Transgender and gender diverse are umbrella terms that cover a wide variety of gender identities. We will use the word transgender in this section, although we acknowledge you may identify a different way.

Other words that people might use to describe their gender identity, including Māori and Pacific terms include:

aikāne
akava’ine
fa’afafine
faafatama
fakafifine
fakaleiti
gender diverse
genderqueer
māhū
non-binary
palopa
takatāpui
tangata ira tāne
trans
transsexual
vakasalewalewa; and
whakawahine.
Not all transgender people want to conform to binary gender norms. Gender diverse people may identify as binary or non-binary. Each person’s gender expression (how they present to the world) is unique. Individual transition goals may include different aspects of social, medical or surgical care.

Some gender diverse people experience distress as a result of the discrepancy between their gender identity and the sex that they were assigned at birth (often referred to as gender dysphoria). Timely access to gender-affirming health care can relieve distress.

Transgender New Zealanders: Children and young people
All children explore different ways of expressing their gender. Many children do not conform to their culture’s expectations for boys or girls; such as boys who prefer dolls and dressing up in skirts or girls who prefer short hair and refuse to wear dresses. Most of these children are comfortable with the sex they were assigned at birth, although some are not.

Occasionally children persistently assert themselves as a gender different from the sex assigned at birth. Transgender children are usually insistent, consistent and persistent in their gender identity and may exhibit distress or discomfort with their physical body.

Some children are aware of their gender identity from a very early age, while others may take some time to figure it out. Children can be very aware of the disapproval of those around them and may try and hide their feelings about their gender.

For gender-expansive children, including those who may identify as transgender, no medical intervention is needed pre-puberty. However you may want to talk to a paediatrician, mental health professional or parent support group to work out how to best support your child or family member. This is particularly important if there is associated distress related to gender identity.

[bolt.]

2 hours ago, ktgrok said:

Perhaps the UK has a less litigious society, or less severe penalties for pharmacists dispensing things wrongly, etc?

Surely pharmacists aren't responsible for dispensing puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones apart from a doctor's prescription in the US? Is there something I'm not understanding about the role of pharmacists in the US medical system?

In what possible cases would it be the *pharmacist* held responsible for filling a prescription 'wrongly' (if the prescription exists, and came from a doctor, and they filled it as-written)?

Surely the *doctor* is held accountable for the prescriptions they write and what conditions they write them for???

(A pharmacist in my province, in Canada, is a little like a very accurate human vending machine, that also keeps an eye on drug safety and interactions and provides good explanations of the drugs for the patient. There are some few exceptions where medicines can be pharmacist-prescribed, but it's not the norm, especially not for complex things like gender care. The aren't making decisions like who gets what medicine, for what reason, etc.)

[EKS]

52 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

Laws against trans people using the bathroom of their perceived gender for example.   A trans woman in a dress with make up, who fully passes, is safer using the womens bathroom than a woman with tiny breasts, short hair cut and basketball shorts who looks more masculine.  The person who is conforming to gender stereotypes would be less likely to be questioned or harassed walking into the bathroom.   

I am talking about medical transition of minors.  

[prairiewindmomma]

12 minutes ago, bolt. said:

Surely pharmacists aren't responsible for dispensing puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones apart from a doctor's prescription in the US? Is there something I'm not understanding about the role of pharmacists in the US medical system?

In what possible cases would it be the *pharmacist* held responsible for filling a prescription 'wrongly' (if the prescription exists, and came from a doctor, and they filled it as-written)?

Surely the *doctor* is held accountable for the prescriptions they write and what conditions they write them for???

(A pharmacist in my province, in Canada, is a little like a very accurate human vending machine, that also keeps an eye on drug safety and interactions and provides good explanations of the drugs for the patient. There are some few exceptions where medicines can be pharmacist-prescribed, but it's not the norm, especially not for complex things like gender care. The aren't making decisions like who gets what medicine, for what reason, etc.)

There are situations like this here.  The one I am most aware of has to do with abortion pills. In Kansas, abortion by medication remains legal, but the state attorney general opposes the abortion by medication. (Alaska, Iowa, and Montana also fit this category, last I checked.)  Walgreens won't dispense abortion pills by mail or in person in these states.

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/03/02/walgreens-abortion-pills-00085325

As the political landscape changes with re: to hormones and their potential uses, I think a number of pharmacies are looking at their potential legal liability on this front as well.

 

[prairiewindmomma]

And if that sounds completely crazy, yes it's completely crazy....and also possible.

[SKL]

 My teens have no difficulty understanding why they must wait until age 18 to legally get a tattoo.  I think they can also understand why one must be capable of adult thinking before deciding to permanently change body parts related to their sex.  If they are having serious difficulties during the waiting period, they can receive psychological therapy.

As far as the reasons behind these rules, I am sure Americans (and non-Americans) are all over the place in their thinking, but I believe most parents want to slow things down not because they hate their child / what their child is, but because they love their child and want to make sure permanent procedures are given sufficient mature thought.

Of course half of the board thinks I just pulled that out of my arse.  Whatever.  The whole "us vs. them" isn't helping kids at all IMO.

[bolt.]

23 minutes ago, prairiewindmomma said:

There are situations like this here.  The one I am most aware of has to do with abortion pills. In Kansas, abortion by medication remains legal, but the state attorney general opposes the abortion by medication. (Alaska, Iowa, and Montana also fit this category, last I checked.)  Walgreens won't dispense abortion pills by mail or in person in these states.

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/03/02/walgreens-abortion-pills-00085325

As the political landscape changes with re: to hormones and their potential uses, I think a number of pharmacies are looking at their potential legal liability on this front as well.

 

Wow. It really is the wild west, I guess!

Imagine a parent company (business people) making decisions about whether professional pharmacists can or can't fill a legal prescription from a licensed doctor, based on the personal opinions of a politician, which haven't been through any legal or governmental process whatsoever.

No matter what anybody says about your system of government in the US, when the underbelly shows, it shows the truth. Capitalism runs your country.

I assure you, that's quite unusual.

I can't quite predict a hypothetical, but my best guess is that where I am (Alberta, Canada) and by extension in most countries with social medicine systems: I imagine that company who thought it could force employed pharmacists to abandon even the smallest part of their role in the healthcare system(s) would soon be told that they were no longer holders of whatever kind of business license allowed that company to operate pharmacies and employ pharmacists in the first place. If that led to insufficient pharmacies for the population, a new company would soon step up to fill the gap.

Business people deciding which legal and prescribed medicines people are allowed to receive! Ludicrous. Either you operate a pharmacy, or you don't. You don't operate a partial pharmacy to limit your 'legal liability'.

[Melissa Louise]

5 hours ago, ktgrok said:

As for why a drag queen might want to use the female designated restrooms/etc...I'm assuming because they don't feel safe in the mens restrooms/etc. Because frankly, they probably aren't. 

I think it the scenario listed it was handled appropriately, and that we need more gender free spaces for those that are truly not safe in the gendered ones. 

And why, oh why, is this a woman's problem to deal with? Are we every drag queen's mother?

Drag is a costume. It's literally mad to me that a male should get to take women's provision without women's consent because his job or persona involves a costume. 

 

 

 

 

[Melissa Louise]

2 hours ago, lewelma said:

I thought some of you may be interested in what the NZ national health care ministry says about transgender care. This is from their website that also has info on puberty blockers  https://www.tewhatuora.govt.nz/keeping-well/transgender-new-zealanders

Different gender identities
Transgender and gender diverse are umbrella terms that cover a wide variety of gender identities. We will use the word transgender in this section, although we acknowledge you may identify a different way.

Other words that people might use to describe their gender identity, including Māori and Pacific terms include:

aikāne
akava’ine
fa’afafine
faafatama
fakafifine
fakaleiti
gender diverse
genderqueer
māhū
non-binary
palopa
takatāpui
tangata ira tāne
trans
transsexual
vakasalewalewa; and
whakawahine.
Not all transgender people want to conform to binary gender norms. Gender diverse people may identify as binary or non-binary. Each person’s gender expression (how they present to the world) is unique. Individual transition goals may include different aspects of social, medical or surgical care.

Some gender diverse people experience distress as a result of the discrepancy between their gender identity and the sex that they were assigned at birth (often referred to as gender dysphoria). Timely access to gender-affirming health care can relieve distress.

Transgender New Zealanders: Children and young people
All children explore different ways of expressing their gender. Many children do not conform to their culture’s expectations for boys or girls; such as boys who prefer dolls and dressing up in skirts or girls who prefer short hair and refuse to wear dresses. Most of these children are comfortable with the sex they were assigned at birth, although some are not.

Occasionally children persistently assert themselves as a gender different from the sex assigned at birth. Transgender children are usually insistent, consistent and persistent in their gender identity and may exhibit distress or discomfort with their physical body.

Some children are aware of their gender identity from a very early age, while others may take some time to figure it out. Children can be very aware of the disapproval of those around them and may try and hide their feelings about their gender.

For gender-expansive children, including those who may identify as transgender, no medical intervention is needed pre-puberty. However you may want to talk to a paediatrician, mental health professional or parent support group to work out how to best support your child or family member. This is particularly important if there is associated distress related to gender identity.

The blocker info is incorrect in repeating the 'time to pause and think' myth. 

In reality, without blockers the vast majority of dysphoric children out grow their dysphoria, generally growing up to be gay, lesbian or otherwise gender non-conforming.

Once blockers are introduced, desistance plummets with around 90% going on to cross sex hormones. 

So blockers pretty.much foreclose on 'time to think' as well.as having  implications re transition for persisting adults, and  effects on bone health, cognitive and sexual development.for all..

 

[ktgrok]

49 minutes ago, SKL said:

 My teens have no difficulty understanding why they must wait until age 18 to legally get a tattoo.  I think they can also understand why one must be capable of adult thinking before deciding to permanently change body parts related to their sex.  If they are having serious difficulties during the waiting period, they can receive psychological therapy.

As far as the reasons behind these rules, I am sure Americans (and non-Americans) are all over the place in their thinking, but I believe most parents want to slow things down not because they hate their child / what their child is, but because they love their child and want to make sure permanent procedures are given sufficient mature thought.

Of course half of the board thinks I just pulled that out of my arse.  Whatever.  The whole "us vs. them" isn't helping kids at all IMO.

1. puberty blockers are not permanent in the same way a tattoo is, although like any medication they can have serious side effects. I agree with you about surgical transitioning, but puberty blockers are different. I'm not saying I'm in favor of them, but I'm not a doctor and it isn't my place to make that call. 

2. IF the politicians (not doctors, but politicians with zero medical background) making these laws were totally cool with adult trans people and only concerned about the medical ramifications on children, then no, I wouldn't be so worried that trans kids get the message that the reason is that they are wrong. BUT in fact, there are a LOT of people that think being trans is flat out wrong, sinful, immoral, etc...and that is the push behind the laws. Otherwise, instead of this being a legislative issue it would be a medical issue with doctors making the decisions, like in say, the UK. 

[Melissa Louise]

5 hours ago, Terabith said:

And when you ban puberty blockers or hormones for trans kids, girls with debilitating periods can’t get birth control pills and kids with precocious puberty cannot get blockers.  Unintended consequences are huge. Legislation and medical treatment shouldn’t go together.  

Medical providers bear a lot of the blame for not providing evidence based treatments in the first place. 

The generous interpretation is that many providers don't understand just how thin the 'evidence' is for what they are doing. 

The less generous interpretation is that a lot of careers are piggy backing on offering this poor treatment to desperate people. 

 

[Melissa Louise]

3 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

1. puberty blockers are not permanent in the same way a tattoo is, although like any medication they can have serious side effects. I agree with you about surgical transitioning, but puberty blockers are different. I'm not saying I'm in favor of them, but I'm not a doctor and it isn't my place to make that call. 

2. IF the politicians (not doctors, but politicians with zero medical background) making these laws were totally cool with adult trans people and only concerned about the medical ramifications on children, then no, I wouldn't be so worried that trans kids get the message that the reason is that they are wrong. BUT in fact, there are a LOT of people that think being trans is flat out wrong, sinful, immoral, etc...and that is the push behind the laws. Otherwise, instead of this being a legislative issue it would be a medical issue with doctors making the decisions, like in say, the UK. 

Blockers are not, in fact, safe and reversible.  Doctors have been prescribing under a false claim - harmless, time to pause, evidence based - and they've been either ignorant or lying to a lot of patients. 

Not harmless - serious side effects. 

Don't give time to think - practically guarantee persistence. 

[ktgrok]

Just now, Melissa Louise said:

Blockers are not, in fact, safe and reversible.  Doctors have been prescribing under a false claim - harmless, time to pause, evidence based - and they've been either ignorant or lying to a lot of patients. 

Not harmless - serious side effects. 

Don't give time to think - practically guarantee persistence. 

I did not say they were harmless - I said they, like many medication, can have serious side effects. And they ARE physically reversible. Saying they may have long term side effects is not the same as saying they are not reversible. 

they are not permanent, as was being stated in the post I responded to. that does not mean I am claiming they are a good or bad idea. Just correcting the idea that they are permanent. 

As for if they are a good idea, that is a medical decision that should be made on a case by case basis (as it is now in the UK) and not a political/legal one made by people who know nothing about medicine or the human body, with a flat ban with no exceptions. 

[KSera]

35 minutes ago, SKL said:

I believe most parents want to slow things down not because they hate their child / what their child is, but because they love their child and want to make sure permanent procedures are given sufficient mature thought.

I think that’s the primary reason for most parents who want to slow medical decisions down but otherwise love and support their child. It’s worth adding that it’s not only the permanence of many aspects of medical transition, but also the attendant side effects. I think some people not closely acquainted think that as long as there’s no concern about a change of heart, there’s no reason to hesitate on medical transition. It’s not a no risk undertaking though, and that’s important for people entering it to understand. Many will decide the risks and side effects are worth it, but some will have regret not because they changed their mind about how they want to present but because the side effects are intolerable (some of those are ones that people are unlikely to discuss with others, such as the vaginal pain and tearing that can often come with testosterone therapy). 
Testosterone HRT and Front Hole Irritation 101: Vaginal Atrophy Symptoms and Treatment Options, Explained by FOLX

 

Cyclic symptoms relating to testosterone dosing

“Transgender men on testosterone may complain of pain that is associated with cyclical testosterone dosing, pelvic, and/or vaginal pain with penetration (with penis, fingers, dildo, etc.), or orgasmic pain. The etiology of post-testosterone administration cramping is unclear. In one cross-sectional study 20% of respondents had a hysterectomy to decrease post-testosterone cramping and another 22% to stop "extreme bleeding and cramping."[16] Trauma informed care can be effective, as are other treatments used for chronic pelvic pain such as pelvic floor therapy, vaginal lubrication with unscented products, or the use of tricyclic antidepressants.”

Those are just two quick examples. It’s just not a simple choice to make  (my own kid now has blood pressure and cholesterol problems, which is a well known testosterone side effect. We don’t have data to know what starting those issues this early in life will mean for the long run; the data doesn’t exist).

**don’t quote last paragraph 

 

[Melissa Louise]

Just now, ktgrok said:

I did not say they were harmless - I said they, like many medication, can have serious side effects. And they ARE physically reversible. Saying they may have long term side effects is not the same as saying they are not reversible. 

they are not permanent, as was being stated in the post I responded to. that does not mean I am claiming they are a good or bad idea. Just correcting the idea that they are permanent. 

As for if they are a good idea, that is a medical decision that should be made on a case by case basis (as it is now in the UK) and not a political/legal one made by people who know nothing about medicine or the human body, with a flat ban with no exceptions. 

But in practice, they are not reversible, in that they set children, almost invariably, on a particular path. 

Have you ever read articles by women treated with these same drugs, for shorter periods of times, for precocious puberty? The serious side effects are not remotely reversible. 

So sure, you can stop taking them. It's just that your body is now f*cked, you don't have adequate tissue for SRS, you haven't gone through a normal cognitive  pubertal development...in practice, not a drug you'd want to give your child under the illusion it's as simple as stopping 

 

[KSera]

3 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

As for if they are a good idea, that is a medical decision that should be made on a case by case basis (as it is now in the UK) and not a political/legal one made by people who know nothing about medicine or the human body, with a flat ban with no exceptions. 

I’m curious if we have more than a couple people here that think these decisions should be made by politicians rather than physicians and/or medical boards? I’m wondering if we’re arguing something we mostly agree on.

[Melissa Louise]

2 minutes ago, KSera said:

I’m curious if we have more than a couple people here that think these decisions should be made by politicians rather than physicians and/or medical boards? I’m wondering if we’re arguing something we mostly agree on.

I think these decisions should be made by medical providers acting ethically and not making false or non-evidenced claims for what they prescribe. 

I don't know what you do when an entire medical industry is predicated on not doing that. 

[ktgrok]

2 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

But in practice, they are not reversible, in that they set children, almost invariably, on a particular path. 

Have you ever read articles by women treated with these same drugs, for shorter periods of times, for precocious puberty? The serious side effects are not remotely reversible. 

So sure, you can stop taking them. It's just that your body is now f*cked, you don't have adequate tissue for SRS, you haven't gone through a normal cognitive  pubertal development...in practice, not a drug you'd want to give your child under the illusion it's as simple as stopping 

 

At that point, you stop taking them and you do go through puberty, although delayed. Again, I get that there can be side effects that persist, but the puberty itself does happen when you stop. 

[bolt.]

Regarding the UK's sensible-sounding new approach to puberty blockers, it seems to me that a critical detail of the story is being missed.

One the one hand: it's correct that puberty blockers will not be prescribed for minors outside of a clinical study. That's true. But, on the other hand (according to the New York Times) *ALL* children currently receiving puberty blockers from the NHS are going to be enrolled in the country-wide study.

("The N.H.S. is organizing a clinical trial for all children receiving puberty blockers from the health service, which it expects will begin enrollment in 2024."  https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/09/health/puberty-blockers-transgender-children-britain-nhs.html#:~:text=The National Health Service of,keep up with soaring demand. )

Which to me, means that everybody who already received them through the previous model for delivering care will continue to receive them, they are just going to be monitored more closely by being enrolled in the study as a component of their care.

The *wider* scope of the new program (compared to the current/previous program) and the fact that it was developed to deal with "soaring demand" implies that there is no intent to simply deny blockers as treatment. The intent is to provide the blockers in a highly structured more holistic program, in which all recipients are considered to be participants in the clinical study, so that the results can be monitored closely both in real time and as data.

It does not imply that the UK considers puberty blockers harmful, or that they intend to discontinue that kind of treatment. It sounds like they fully intend to provide the treatment more widely than they currently do -- but with more safeguards. Like I said: sensible-sounding.

[ktgrok]

6 minutes ago, KSera said:

I think that’s the primary reason for most parents who want to slow medical decisions down but otherwise love and support their child. It’s worth adding that it’s not only the permanence of many aspects of medical transition, but also the attendant side effects. I think some people not closely acquainted think that as long as there’s no concern about a change of heart, there’s no reason to hesitate on medical transition. It’s not a no risk undertaking though, and that’s important for people entering it to understand. Many will decide the risks and side effects are worth it, but some will have regret not because they changed their mind about how they want to present but because the side effects are intolerable (some of those are ones that people are unlikely to discuss with others, such as the vaginal pain and tearing that can often come with testosterone therapy). 
Testosterone HRT and Front Hole Irritation 101: Vaginal Atrophy Symptoms and Treatment Options, Explained by FOLX

 

Cyclic symptoms relating to testosterone dosing

“Transgender men on testosterone may complain of pain that is associated with cyclical testosterone dosing, pelvic, and/or vaginal pain with penetration (with penis, fingers, dildo, etc.), or orgasmic pain. The etiology of post-testosterone administration cramping is unclear. In one cross-sectional study 20% of respondents had a hysterectomy to decrease post-testosterone cramping and another 22% to stop "extreme bleeding and cramping."[16] Trauma informed care can be effective, as are other treatments used for chronic pelvic pain such as pelvic floor therapy, vaginal lubrication with unscented products, or the use of tricyclic antidepressants.”

Those are just two quick examples. It’s just not a simple choice to make  (my own kid now has blood pressure and cholesterol problems, which is a well known testosterone side effect. We don’t have data to know what starting those issues this early in life will mean for the long run; the data doesn’t exist).

**don’t quote last paragraph 

 

puberty blockers and cross sex hormones are two different things though, correct?

[ktgrok]

1 minute ago, bolt. said:

Regarding the UK's sensible-sounding new approach to puberty blockers, it seems to me that a critical detail of the story is being missed.

One the one hand: it's correct that puberty blockers will not be prescribed for minors outside of a clinical study. That's true. But, on the other hand (according to the New York Times) *ALL* children currently receiving puberty blockers from the NHS are going to be enrolled in the country-wide study.

("The N.H.S. is organizing a clinical trial for all children receiving puberty blockers from the health service, which it expects will begin enrollment in 2024."  https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/09/health/puberty-blockers-transgender-children-britain-nhs.html#:~:text=The National Health Service of,keep up with soaring demand. )

Which to me, means that everybody who already received them through the previous model for delivering care will continue to receive them, they are just going to be monitored more closely by being enrolled in the study as a component of their care.

The *wider* scope of the new program (compared to the current/previous program) and the fact that it was developed to deal with "soaring demand" implies that there is no intent to simply deny blockers as treatment. The intent is to provide the blockers in a highly structured more holistic program, in which all recipients are considered to be participants in the clinical study, so that the results can be monitored closely both in real time and as data.

It does not imply that the UK considers puberty blockers harmful, or that they intend to discontinue that kind of treatment. It sounds like they fully intend to provide the treatment more widely than they currently do -- but with more safeguards. Like I said: sensible-sounding.

also, children not enrolled in studies can still get them, after the doctor appeals to a board set up to deal with this. Or parents can get them on their own, elsewhere. 

There are not criminal pentalties, no one is taking children away, etc. 

[bolt.]

Just now, ktgrok said:

also, children not enrolled in studies can still get them, after the doctor appeals to a board set up to deal with this. Or parents can get them on their own, elsewhere. 

There are not criminal pentalties, no one is taking children away, etc. 

Yes. Sensible-sounding.

[prairiewindmomma]

My personal feelings are that I am not enthusiastic about medical transitioning for minors AND that I don't believe that I have any business getting in the way of a family and their medical care team.  For some, I do think it's a last resort to keep kids and teens from un-aliving and curtailing that option is going to have consequences, just as transitioning for some is going to have consequences. It's all frought, and comes from pain, and I'm not in any position to make that decision for another.

A doctor has to sign off on all of that, same as with reproductive health. Let the doctors be educated and make those decisions in conjunction with families.

[Melissa Louise]

4 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

puberty blockers and cross sex hormones are two different things though, correct?

In practice, they form one continuum of treatment. Taking blockers almost guarantees a child will transition to cross sex hormones. 

[KSera]

3 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

I think these decisions should be made by medical providers acting ethically and not making false or non-evidenced claims for what they prescribe. 

I don't know what you do when an entire medical industry is predicated on not doing that. 

I think the first step in correcting that is to take politics out of it. I honestly think that since medical providers are also human, they’re just not able to operate outside politics, most of them. Which I don’t entirely blame them for, considering the hateful rhetoric on one side—I mean who wants to be associated in any way with that?. The politics somehow needs to be gone in order for decisions to be based on Science. 

1 minute ago, ktgrok said:

puberty blockers and cross sex hormones are two different things though, correct?

They are. But 95% of the time, hormones follow puberty blockers. It’s been said to “crystallize” the identity in a way watchful waiting does not. My kid came to this much later, so I’m only passingly familiar with puberty blockers. 

[Melissa Louise]

1 minute ago, prairiewindmomma said:

My personal feelings are that I am not enthusiastic about medical transitioning for minors AND that I don't believe that I have any business getting in the way of a family and their medical care team.  For some, I do think it's a last resort to keep kids and teens from un-aliving and curtailing that option is going to have consequences, just as transitioning for some is going to have consequences. It's all frought, and comes from pain, and I'm not in any position to make that decision for another.

A doctor has to sign off on all of that, same as with reproductive health. Let the doctors be educated and make those decisions in conjunction with families.

Curious - do you apply this to families who choose not to go down an affirmative route in favour of an exploratory one? 

In other words, on the same principle, do you reject the notion of getting in the way of those families? 

State next to mine, I could have been dobbed in to authorities  for choosing exploratory psychotherapy for my son. 

[Melissa Louise]

Just now, KSera said:

I think the first step in correcting that is to take politics out of it. I honestly think that since medical providers are also human, they’re just not able to operate outside politics, most of them. Which I don’t entirely blame them for, considering the hateful rhetoric on one side—I mean who wants to be associated in any way with that?. The politics somehow needs to be gone in order for decisions to be based on Science. 

They are. But 95% of the time, hormones follow puberty blockers. It’s been said to “crystallize” the identity in a way watchful waiting does not. My kid came to this much later, so I’m only passingly familiar with puberty blockers. 

Medical providers have a professional obligation to understand what they are doing, why, and on what evidence base, regardless of politics, imo. 

[KSera]

3 minutes ago, prairiewindmomma said:

For some, I do think it's a last resort to keep kids and teens from un-aliving and curtailing that option is going to have consequences, just as transitioning for some is going to have consequences. It's all frought, and comes from pain, and I'm not in any position to make that decision for another.

Yes. And many of us jumped on board to try to prevent that terrible thing, but unfortunately, the research increasingly shows it doesn’t tend to help in that regard the way we thought it did 😔. Most particularly not for this newer population that presents differently from the population that studies were initially done on (which were mostly born males presenting in early childhood). It’s more than a little disheartening. 

[KSera]

4 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

Medical providers have a professional obligation to understand what they are doing, why, and on what evidence base, regardless of politics, imo. 

I agree, but it doesn’t mean they do it. 

[Melissa Louise]

Just now, KSera said:

I agree, but it doesn’t mean they do it. 

No, they don't, which is why 'leave it up to the doctors' has been such a sh*tshow. 

 

[Melissa Louise]

5 minutes ago, KSera said:

Yes. And many of us jumped on board to try to prevent that terrible thing, but unfortunately, the research increasingly shows it doesn’t tend to help in that regard the way we thought it did 😔. Most particularly not for this newer population that presents differently from the population that studies were initially done on (which were mostly born males presenting in early childhood). It’s more than a little disheartening. 

Yeah, therapy and treating co-morbidities have a better profile re reducing suicidality, which is why I find the conflation of conversion with exploratory therapy in discourse and in law just so objectionable. 

Blockers are cheaper and easier to get, of course, damn the consequences. 

 

[prairiewindmomma]

Just now, Melissa Louise said:

Curious - do you apply this to families who choose not to go down an affirmative route in favour of an exploratory one? 

In other words, on the same principle, do you reject the notion of getting in the way of those families? 

State next to mine, I could have been dobbed in to authorities  for choosing exploratory psychotherapy for my son. 

The personal me answer, all legal issues aside? Because, for me, I don't know whether my legal-minded answer is the same. I'm still a bit reeling from this all.....and I don't even know that my personal me answer is my best and most reflective of my feelings one. But, me, right now, answering this question----

My personal me answer is that I think that good psychological support should be a part of counseling during any consideration of gender identity.  I do think there are a number of people, particularly those who would have traditionally been considered "butch lesbians" (goodness, I hate that term, but for lack of a better one...) who do not feel particularly feminine but who don't have good social support for just being themselves.  I think people AFAB particularly struggle in this area in part because of misogyny towards women in general. But, I will also say that it looks like statistically that people who traditionally have problems with emotional identification like some with autism and some with other traditionally socially-categorized neurodivergence tend to struggle more with gender identity. I don't write that in a dismissive way, as if we should just say "of course people with autism may not understand gender and just don't know how to be a girl"---I'm not saying that at all--I'm saying it's an area worth exploring.  So, supportive but exploratory psychotherapy---yes, I'm generally supportive of that.

I will also say that my personal medical adventures in reproductive areas have been kind of a hellscape. I've experienced some side effects from medications from me just trying to stay alive despite my body trying to kill me that have been truly terrible. I perhaps am a bit more cautious about hormones and medications than others just because of my personal experiences.  

OTOH, I have people in my extended network who fight to remain here because of some of the social attacks they get just being themselves....and that also has my empathy.

If I had some magical fairy wand where I could make the world more empathetic and accepting, I would do that. I'd also wave my wand to make men stop hurting people.  I don't know that a lot of the transphobia is about the trans part of things---I think it's a fear that men who are pretending to be trans are going to hurt women.  Some men are dangerous, and solving that problem I think that would actually solve a good chunk of transphobia, but also dysphoria for some, but not all people. It's again one of those bits where we, imo, are all arguing about the wrong thing again---the problem to be solved is that men hurt women and men want to make decisions for others than themselves.  

 

[Melissa Louise]

3 hours ago, EKS said:

Correct.

It stuns me how willfully blind adults seem to be about the complexity of these issues. 

As a gender non-conforming adult, as a former child who had significant gender dysphoria, and as an adult who still does to some extent, I am BEYOND GRATEFUL that the message I got growing up in the 1970s was this: "The reality is that you are a female, but you can live in the world however you want" and that there was no pressure to "pick" an identity because the facts of the matter spoke for themselves.

I just wanted to acknowledge your voice here, given your lived experience. It seems to have been glossed over. 

I am grateful for people like you who enabled me to have the confidence to guide two children with dysphoria diagnoses through difficult times, and out the other side into their lives as non-conforming, healthy adults. 

 

[Melissa Louise]

13 minutes ago, prairiewindmomma said:

The personal me answer, all legal issues aside? Because, for me, I don't know whether my legal-minded answer is the same. I'm still a bit reeling from this all.....and I don't even know that my personal me answer is my best and most reflective of my feelings one. But, me, right now, answering this question----

My personal me answer is that I think that good psychological support should be a part of counseling during any consideration of gender identity.  I do think there are a number of people, particularly those who would have traditionally been considered "butch lesbians" (goodness, I hate that term, but for lack of a better one...) who do not feel particularly feminine but who don't have good social support for just being themselves.  I think people AFAB particularly struggle in this area in part because of misogyny towards women in general. But, I will also say that it looks like statistically that people who traditionally have problems with emotional identification like some with autism and some with other traditionally socially-categorized neurodivergence tend to struggle more with gender identity. I don't write that in a dismissive way, as if we should just say "of course people with autism may not understand gender and just don't know how to be a girl"---I'm not saying that at all--I'm saying it's an area worth exploring.  So, supportive but exploratory psychotherapy---yes, I'm generally supportive of that.

I will also say that my personal medical adventures in reproductive areas have been kind of a hellscape. I've experienced some side effects from medications from me just trying to stay alive despite my body trying to kill me that have been truly terrible. I perhaps am a bit more cautious about hormones and medications than others just because of my personal experiences.  

OTOH, I have people in my extended network who fight to remain here because of some of the social attacks they get just being themselves....and that also has my empathy.

If I had some magical fairy wand where I could make the world more empathetic and accepting, I would do that. I'd also wave my wand to make men stop hurting people.  I don't know that a lot of the transphobia is about the trans part of things---I think it's a fear that men who are pretending to be trans are going to hurt women.  Some men are dangerous, and solving that problem I think that would actually solve a good chunk of transphobia, but also dysphoria for some, but not all people. It's again one of those bits where we, imo, are all arguing about the wrong thing again---the problem to be solved is that men hurt women and men want to make decisions for others than themselves.  

 

I also have significant effects of medication, making me very wary. 

I don't see a focus on solving male violence (stemming from gender - males being socialised into entitlement re women, children and other men) on either side of this debate, tbh. 

One side thinks male dominance is pre-ordained, and the other says things like 'get over it!' to women who are survivors of male violence. 

My objection to males in the small % of spaces where females are vulnerable - my transphobia, if you want to call it that - is based around the statistical reality that makes are riskier to females than vice versa. There is no evidence that a particular gender identification shifts that statistical risk.

When your side of the debate decides it's actually ok to remember female people have legitimate interests and needs, and that balancing needs is not bigotry, that will be a good day. 

I am hope you are not in favour of criminalising parents who seek exploratory therapy. The 'law' side of things. 

Data point of 2, but it worked well for us. 

Edited June 19, 2023 by Melissa Louise

[ktgrok]

24 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

No, they don't, which is why 'leave it up to the doctors' has been such a sh*tshow. 

 

I don't know, it seems from what you and others are saying, that in a lot of places like the UK and other European countries doctors are, given time and experience, adapting their treatment guidelines, without any political interference. 

I can't see how in the USA, anyway, involving politicians can make it any less of a disaster. 

[EKS]

1 minute ago, Melissa Louise said:

When your side of the debate decides it's actually ok to remember female people have legitimate interests and needs, and that balancing needs is not bigotry, that will be a good day. 

This.

[Melissa Louise]

Just now, ktgrok said:

I don't know, it seems from what you and others are saying, that in a lot of places like the UK and other European countries doctors are, given time and experience, adapting their treatment guidelines, without any political interference. 

I can't see how in the USA, anyway, involving politicians can make it any less of a disaster. 

Oh no, there has been significant pressure needing to be applied to get to the current UK stage. Ironically, a lot of that pressure to look at the evidence came from those ppl like to slur as T*RF's. 

It didn't arise organically from nice doctors. 

[ktgrok]

I'm not the one Melissa asked, but to be clear, I am NOT in favor of criminalizing exploratory therapy. I'm actually VERY supportive of exploratory therapy, and think it likely IS the better course for many or most kids/teens with dysphoria. I actually agree with Melissa on most of that!

I just don't want it to be illegal for other treatments, if need be, and parents and doctors decide it is the best route. 

So I guess I'd say I'm concerned as much as anyone that transitioning is being done too quickly, too young, and too often....but also fully oppose making it a criminal practice. 

[Melissa Louise]

Just now, ktgrok said:

I'm not the one Melissa asked, but to be clear, I am NOT in favor of criminalizing exploratory therapy. I'm actually VERY supportive of exploratory therapy, and think it likely IS the better course for many or most kids/teens with dysphoria. I actually agree with Melissa on most of that!

I just don't want it to be illegal for other treatments, if need be, and parents and doctors decide it is the best route. 

So I guess I'd say I'm concerned as much as anyone that transitioning is being done too quickly, too young, and too often....but also fully oppose making it a criminal practice. 

I favour making it a restricted practice.

Only taking place in clinical trials until there is much better data to work with seems reasonable to me. 

 

[ktgrok]

1 minute ago, Melissa Louise said:

Oh no, there has been significant pressure needing to be applied to get to the current UK stage. Ironically, a lot of that pressure to look at the evidence came from those ppl like to slur as T*RF's. 

It didn't arise organically from nice doctors. 

Did it come from politicians who have no knowledge or understanding of the issue? Or nazi groups? Cause that's who we are dealing with here. Seriously. I wish I was joking. 

I had sort of assumed it came from people doing studies, presenting evidence at whatever medical conferences, etc - and that some of those people were those who had been through transition themselves  - people on the medical side but also people on the "personally effected" side. 

Not random nazis or politicians who legit don't know how babies are made,  let alone a thing about hormones or hormone blockers. 

 

[ktgrok]

Just now, Melissa Louise said:

I favour making it a restricted practice.

Only taking place in clinical trials until there is much better data to work with seems reasonable to me. 

 

Restricted by the medical organizations themselves, or criminalized legally, with potential criminal penalties, children removed from homes, etc? 

[bolt.]

5 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

I don't know, it seems from what you and others are saying, that in a lot of places like the UK and other European countries doctors are, given time and experience, adapting their treatment guidelines, without any political interference. 

I can't see how in the USA, anyway, involving politicians can make it any less of a disaster. 

In the USA, do you have any type of nation-wide Doctor's Association, or licensing organization, or whatever, that creates treatment policies that doctors are expected to abide by (or risk censure from that organization)? Like, *other* than legislators, what body or board is making these kind of unified oversight type of decisions for other conditions. Like, who decides what's a responsible course of care for bowel cancer, and what's out of bounds? Anybody?

[Melissa Louise]

Just now, ktgrok said:

Did it come from politicians who have no knowledge or understanding of the issue? Or nazi groups? Cause that's who we are dealing with here. Seriously. I wish I was joking. 

I had sort of assumed it came from people doing studies, presenting evidence at whatever medical conferences, etc - and that some of those people were those who had been through transition themselves  - people on the medical side but also people on the "personally effected" side. 

Not random nazis or politicians who legit don't know how babies are made,  let alone a thing about hormones or hormone blockers. 

 

From T*FS. The pressure and the whistle blowing came from T*RFs. Who could have guessed that left wing feminists in health and academia might have children's best interests in mind, I guess. 

The only reason, however, there has been any traction, is because Tories are in government. They see the issue as appealing to their base and differentiating them from Labour. 

So it's pressure from T*RFs, + Tories + a few whistleblower, and a LOT of crowd funding legal cases. 

[Melissa Louise]

3 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

Restricted by the medical organizations themselves, or criminalized legally, with potential criminal penalties, children removed from homes, etc? 

By medical organisations.

 

[ktgrok]

Just now, bolt. said:

In the USA, do you have any type of nation-wide Doctor's Association, or licensing organization, or whatever, that creates treatment policies that doctors are expected to abide by (or risk censure from that organization)? Like, *other* than legislators, what body or board is making these kind of unified oversight type of decisions for other conditions. Like, who decides what's a responsible course of care for bowel cancer, and what's out of bounds? Anybody?

There is the American Medical Association, which publishes guidelines, and then each specialty also has an organizaiton that publishes guidelines. But they are not able to say, strip of a doctor of their credentials for going outside their guidelines. BUT doctors put themselves at risk of malpractice when they practice outside those guidelines. 

[prairiewindmomma]

I think my experience is such that women are vulnerable anywhere where men are near.....and that that vulnerability isn't necessarily any higher inside of bathrooms or locker rooms. I think I am more likely to be attacked by a man who identifies as male coming into a "female" bathroom than I am by any trans woman.

I think transwomen are more likely to be attacked in mens' rooms than in womens' rooms, and in my ideal "wave a wand" world, all bathrooms would be "all gender" individual or family rooms with lockable doors. But, where they are not, my preference is to allow people to choose bathrooms with however they identify than to exclude them from any bathroom at all.  

And, I hold enough space to also believe that the KS rules that have come out with re: to private spaces hurt a wide variety of people beyond just transgender persons. 

I don't know that I fall nicely into anywhere where I can say "your side" versus "my side".

[ktgrok]

1 minute ago, Melissa Louise said:

By medical organisations.

 

Yeah....doctors making policies on medicine, I'm okay with. 

That's now how things are playing out in the USA. Not at all. Not with abortion, not with trans care, not with much of anything, frankly. 

[ktgrok]

1 minute ago, prairiewindmomma said:

I think my experience is such that women are vulnerable anywhere where men are near.....and that that vulnerability isn't necessarily any higher inside of bathrooms or locker rooms. I think I am more likely to be attacked by a man who identifies as male coming into a "female" bathroom than I am by any trans woman.

I think transwomen are more likely to be attacked in mens' rooms than in womens' rooms, and in my ideal "wave a wand" world, all bathrooms would be "all gender" individual or family rooms with lockable doors. But, where they are not, my preference is to allow people to choose bathrooms with however they identify than to exclude them from any bathroom at all.  

And, I hold enough space to also believe that the KS rules that have come out with re: to private spaces hurt a wide variety of people beyond just transgender persons. 

I don't know that I fall nicely into anywhere where I can say "your side" versus "my side".

What kills me about the bathroom thing is that if you say transwomen have to use the mens room, that means transmen have to use the women's room. And that is going to be UGLY because women will freak out when they see what to them is clearly a man entering the women's restroom. But worse, if that happens, women get used to it, then men who are just cis men could walk in, SAY they are transmen, and do the things everyone is afraid of. Seems it makes it EASIER for men to access the women's room because at that point, they don't even have to look feminine at all, and women have to just hope that whatever man walks in actually has a vagina?

Basically, it's lose/lose either way.