> A shallow dismissal, a perfectly reasonable argument against irreversible action for changing children’s genders is that many of them aren’t so sure as it seems and later want to transition back.
About 2% want to transition back. 98% are quite sure, and are happy with being treated. Trans youth who are not treated tend to be miserable as adults, with many committing suicide since their bodies have been shaped by the puberty of their natal sex in such a way as to draw constant negative attention. While it is very reasonable to want to lower that 2% rate down even further, attempting to rip care away from that other 98% is not reasonable. Just prejudice, masquerading as concern for children, same as the 80's when "save the children" was having a national campaign against homosexual rights.
If you're not ideologically invested in this topic and are sincerely interested in the truth, I'd urge you to look at your own country from an outsider's point of view. The point being, many sources in the US that were reputable (i.e. scientific american) are parroting misinformation about this topic in service of ideology. That much is obvious to someone who does not live in the anglo-sphere. To address your claims, I'd recommend you check out Hannah Barnes' book, "Time to Think". This much should show that the study you're relying on is dubious, and transitively, your rhetoric.
> If you're not ideologically invested in this topic and are sincerely interested in the truth, I'd urge you to look at your own country from an outsider's point of view. The point being, many sources in the US that were reputable (i.e. scientific american) are parroting misinformation about this topic in service of ideology.
You've really been running wild in this comments section, as have I. I can see that we're both very interested in this topic, but from different sides.
What I'll point out here again, is that you continue to paint reputable organizations that disagree with you as "ideological" while maintaining yourself as some sort of unbiased outside observer. This is blatantly untrue.
You are the one trying to change the facts being reported by reputable sources. You are the activist who is engaged in a campaign of attempting to ideologically modify unbiased institutions.
I think the trans topic can really rile people up, and there's no shortage of think pieces of conspiracy theories about it. Same as has existed around lots of minority groups that caught the attention and ire of the larger public.
You aren't the unbiased observer however. You are an activist, and it shows in your writing.
I don't appreciate your ad-hominem attacks. I spent two years outside of the US witnessing the idiocy of Trump, and another three witnessing the idiocy and regressiveness of the "progressives". As such, I don't take sides in your politics; both your left and right are a disaster to me.
I am not an activist, but I do care about causes that most on the left would empathise with, which is ironic given that gender-affirming care is one heralded by the "progressives" on the left. To the best of my ability, my commitment is to reason, which is something the right clearly lacked during (and after) the Trump administration, and something the left has been lacking for quite some time now.
This much should establish that I'm not some garden-variety "right-winger". Now that signalling my "creds" is out of the way (and it should never have mattered anyway), I think I have a unique perspective as an outsider. Because I have no commitment to US' abysmal politics and since I am not in the anglosphere, I'm not immersed in the local narratives that are happening on the ground. This lets me compare (much fairly) the US and UK + EU's approach to gender-affirming care, and how it's reported. So perhaps while I'm not an unbiased observer as you would put it (I have an opinion on this matter), I do think I've a much better view of what's going on than someone in a country who's narratives are dominated by their political extremes.
So here you are, making a bunch of accusations about me which you can't even bother to back up. To counter that, here's something of substance; for those who think there are no credible claims to the contrary, you can check out this investigative feature by the British Medical Journal (BMJ)[0], one of the most reputable journals in medicine alongside The Lancet.
Indeed. The Guardian is a source I consider to be fairly ideological on certain topics, and belongs to the camp that would largely be in support of gender-affirming care. Yet despite their bias, even they gave a decent review of the book.
For those who are earnest about understanding what's up, the last thing you should do when evaluating the comments of a particularly politicised topic is to automatically deem a downvoted comment as being on the "wrong" side. This is how you inherit opinions that you were never truly convinced of in the first place. Always go to the original sources, and given how politicised this is in the US, it's ideal to see how the UK and EU are handling this. It can't harm to look outside of the bubble you're in, you own your opinions afterall.
Even assuming your study is true, the argument against irreversibly treating children is still a reasonable position and not the shallowly insulting straw man argument you present as the only option.
> the argument against irreversibly treating children is still a reasonable position
Allowing a trans child to go through their natal puberty is not a neutral act. A trans person who "passes" has a much better lifetime outcome thanks to facing less discrimination and having less body image issues (not many people living as females would enjoy being called a man in a dress and harassed regularly based on their body proportions regardless of their chromosomes).
> and not the shallowly insulting straw man argument you present as the only option.
It's not a shallow straw man. Anti-trans activists want to ban care for trans people outright. They want conversion therapy - or what they have slickly labled "gender exploratory therapy" - to be the only treatment available.
If we hadn't lived through many decades where such treatment was already the only option and seen how disastrous it was I may be less inclined to say they are acting in bad faith, but, alas, we know exactly what conversion therapy does: it creates incredibly traumatized adults who are still trans.
All your arguments do not change the fact that it is still possible for reasonable people to simply disagree with you, and it is not a valid argument to put up straw men to take down, just like you’re doing again here, this time anyone against irreversible actions taken on children is claimed to be someone who ‘wants to ban care for trans people outright’.
If your arguments consist of assigning outrageous opinions to people you disagree with, your argument is invalid and you’re bound to be wrong.
About 2% want to transition back. 98% are quite sure, and are happy with being treated. Trans youth who are not treated tend to be miserable as adults, with many committing suicide since their bodies have been shaped by the puberty of their natal sex in such a way as to draw constant negative attention. While it is very reasonable to want to lower that 2% rate down even further, attempting to rip care away from that other 98% is not reasonable. Just prejudice, masquerading as concern for children, same as the 80's when "save the children" was having a national campaign against homosexual rights.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S188898912...