Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Fried Egg]

You believe, instead of society making rules about who can be given sex re-assignment surgery, medical professionals should deciding.

Not at all! Despite all we have said to each other, you claim to know, somehow, what I "believe". But you don't.

Ok, if you say so. To be fair (to myself) it was as much of a question as it was a statement. Me trying to get my head around exactly what you believe. Having read the rest of this post, I am still unclear.

And in many cases, this is how it actually is. But not in all of them. There are *some* cases where we need to listen to the child, and understand that, in this case if no other, transition is appropriate. To be trans, but ignored and denied, is a terrible and traumatic way to grow up. And yet there are children who are mistaken too. These decisions are HARD.

In case I haven't been clear, I'm not opposed to children "socially" transitioning. As far as this is concerned, they do not need to be "ignored and denied". I'm only talking about life altering treatments (if that makes a difference).

Anyhow, on this particular matter, I'm sure we are not going to agree. Unless you have any new arguments to make, I suggest we leave it there.

[Pattern-chaser]

I'm not opposed to children "socially" transitioning.

As far as I know, no-one has even suggested this odd-seeming dichotomy. What on Earth is "social" transitioning? There is a profound difference between transvestism and transsexuality. [I can only guess that "social" transitioning must be that the child is permitted to wear clothing traditionally associated with the biological sex corresponding to their visible sexual organs.]

For a trans person, transitioning is an approximation. They would like more and better, but that is unavailable, so they settle for the best we have. And those trans people who have transitioned, and are content with their choice — i.e. most of them — will tell you that they always knew they were trans, even at the age where you would do anything you could to prevent their transition.

As I keep repeating, these decisions are nuanced, and insanely difficult to make.

[Fried Egg]

I'm not opposed to children "socially" transitioning.

As far as I know, no-one has even suggested this odd-seeming dichotomy. What on Earth is "social" transitioning? There is a profound difference between transvestism and transsexuality. [I can only guess that "social" transitioning must be that the child is permitted to wear clothing traditionally associated with the biological sex corresponding to their visible sexual organs.]

A quick google came up with this: "Social transitioning involves a person adopting a new name, pronouns, and/or gender expression that aligns with their identified gender, often without involving medical interventions. This process can include changing one's appearance, behavior, and how they are referred to by others. It's a way for individuals to live authentically and express their gender identity in their daily lives. "

It is not an odd "dichotomy" in the slightest, it is a well established concept. And presumably what everyone (who was unhappy with their gender) did throughout history until the very recent advent of surgical interventions. The important distinction (as far as I am concerned) is that one can easily reverse a social transition but medical interventions are likely to leave permanent changes that are difficult (if at all possible) to reverse.

[Sy Borg]

Egg, social transition without surgery is hardly satisfactory, blurring the lines to the point we have now, where men in dresses can enter female rest rooms and changing rooms.

For M2F, the principle is ultimately similar to that of eunuchs in Rome. Eunuchs could be trusted by emperors around their harems because they lacked a typical male's means, and drives, to be a danger. Many women are simply not going to feel safe sharing certain spaces with penis wielders.

There was a reason that there was a requirement for prospective transpeople to be assessed over a period of years before approval would be given for surgery. This system seemed to work well, so I'm not sure why it was changed to Rafferty's Rules, where anything goes. All we need is to return to the rules of a decade ago. You'd think that, after a few years of assessment and being found to be sound of mind and fully committed to the change, most transitions will not be regretted.

Before today's gender mania (whipped up by media to distract from economic bastardry in high places), you didn't hear much about people who detransitioned, I suppose, because it was so rare.

[Fried Egg]

Egg, social transition without surgery is hardly satisfactory, blurring the lines to the point we have now, where men in dresses can enter female rest rooms and changing rooms.

We're talking about children here. I was responding to the following remark:

There are *some* cases where we need to listen to the child, and understand that, in this case if no other, transition is appropriate. To be trans, but ignored and denied, is a terrible and traumatic way to grow up.

I'm opposed to the surgical transitioning of children but am not opposed to them living as the opposite sex as far as they can (without surgical intervention and without infringing on the rights of others).

No doubt, for some, this is not satisfactory and would want to go further. But, as far as children are concerned, I don't think that should be allowed.

[Pattern-chaser]

No doubt, for some, this is not satisfactory and would want to go further. But, as far as children are concerned, I don't think that should be allowed.

Yes, we know. You've told us here many times. But I still think you're missing the point. That point is not directly about children, it's about the difficulty of making a decision where an error will have significant consequences. This is worsened by having to make that decision for someone else, but the one and only stumbling block remains: getting it wrong will have unfortunate consequences.

Imagine we have a magic spell that can identify a trans person without error. By using such a spell, we could begin therapy much earlier. And that's important. Because a truly-trans child could benefit hugely from starting pharmaceutical treatment well before puberty sets in. That's why it's so important to make the decision (to treat or not) as early as possible in the child's life. Because, if the child is trans, they could benefit so much from timely therapy*.

The difficulty this topic addresses is not directly about children, for the reasons I just explained (although they seem obvious to me). It's about the difficulty of making serious decisions based on too little evidence. The evidence just isn't available, so we must do the best we can, with what we have. And *that* is difficult. No matter how old the patient is. But delaying or avoiding the decision, perhaps because it is such a difficult one, is no solution. If the child is trans, they will suffer from this avoidance or neglect. And we don't want that, either.



* — and if the child is not trans, we could avoid giving therapy that could ultimately be harmful, which is just as important.

[Fried Egg]

No doubt, for some, this is not satisfactory and would want to go further. But, as far as children are concerned, I don't think that should be allowed.

Yes, we know. You've told us here many times.

I feel like I am in a three way conversation right now in which my two interlocutors cannot hear each other and when I say something to one, the other thinks I'm talking to them. I had to clarify my position (again) to Sy Borg because he interpreted my reply to you about children transitioning as a remark about adults transitioning.

But I still think you're missing the point.

I think I do understand the point.

If you could know without a shadow of a doubt that :

1) a child was definitely "trans",
2) the only course of action that could help them be happy was to surgically transition
3) they would never regret not being able to have children (nor any of the other side effects that come from these surgical procedures),

Then it probably * makes sense that they should transition as soon as possible since clearly transitioning someone before puberty (or before the full effects of puberty have taken place) will be better able to pass and you will reduce the amount of time they will continue to suffer.

But of course we don't have this perfect knowledge and I'm still not sure I understand or accept the idea that someone can be truly trans (for reasons I have already discussed ad nauseum). The one thing we do know for sure is that surgically transitioning children permanently damages their otherwise healthy body. And we don't even know all the ways in which it is damaging because not enough research has been done.

But yes, it is a difficult decision. There is no solution that will please everybody and there are trade offs either way.

* I say probably because I have read some reports that say blocking puberty is actually quite damaging because it is necessary both for the physical and mental development of the person.

[Sy Borg]

Egg, social transition without surgery is hardly satisfactory, blurring the lines to the point we have now, where men in dresses can enter female rest rooms and changing rooms.

We're talking about children here. I was responding to the following remark:

There are *some* cases where we need to listen to the child, and understand that, in this case if no other, transition is appropriate. To be trans, but ignored and denied, is a terrible and traumatic way to grow up.

I'm opposed to the surgical transitioning of children but am not opposed to them living as the opposite sex as far as they can (without surgical intervention and without infringing on the rights of others).

No doubt, for some, this is not satisfactory and would want to go further. But, as far as children are concerned, I don't think that should be allowed.

For the nth time: I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT CHILDREN. Get it?

My comments refer to how ADULTS are treated. I have said so many times here that I think think children should be left to develop before transitioning them but you keep on trying to make it seem that I am unreasonably pushing to cut off children's bits.

A most unethical way to engage.

[Fried Egg]

For the nth time: I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT CHILDREN. Get it?

My comments refer to how ADULTS are treated. I have said so many times here that I think think children should be left to develop before transitioning them but you keep on trying to make it seem that I am unreasonably pushing to cut off children's bits.

A most unethical way to engage.

Are you kidding me?

You drop in and comment on something I said in reply to Pattern-chaser (who is talking about children) and accuse me of being unethical?

I know you don't want to surgically transition children but pattern-chaser doesn't want to let it drop but for some reason it's only me he is challenging but you're interpreting replies I make to him as if I've only been conversing with you. Is he on your ignore list or something?

[Sy Borg]

For the nth time: I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT CHILDREN. Get it?

My comments refer to how ADULTS are treated. I have said so many times here that I think think children should be left to develop before transitioning them but you keep on trying to make it seem that I am unreasonably pushing to cut off children's bits.

A most unethical way to engage.

Are you kidding me?

You drop in and comment on something I said in reply to Pattern-chaser (who is talking about children) and accuse me of being unethical?

I know you don't want to surgically transition children but pattern-chaser doesn't want to let it drop but for some reason it's only me he is challenging but you're interpreting replies I make to him as if I've only been conversing with you. Is he on your ignore list or something?

You quoted an exchange with me in there, making it seem like I was not giving due attention to the plight of children unfairly caught up in adults' gender ideology mazes.

[Fried Egg]

You quoted an exchange with me in there, making it seem like I was not giving due attention to the plight of children unfairly caught up in adults' gender ideology mazes.

No, I quoted you dropping in and commenting on something I said in reply to pattern-chaser regarding children. If you were not paying due attention, it was to the conversation I was engaged in here.

[Sy Borg]

Anyway, I'm not talking about children ...

It should be said that, before trans became viral, sometimes you'd read in the news about kids transitioning. But these weren't kids being gaslit by trans-obsessed PC parents that their childish experimentation meant they were trans. These were kids, who despite all attempts to normalise them, were so "trans-ish" that their parents had no choice but to relent.

The phenomenon exists, but it's hard to speak rationally with people about that because both sides are so charged up and prone to paint perceived political opponents as unreasoning beasts.

[Pattern-chaser]

The one thing we do know for sure is that surgically transitioning children permanently damages their otherwise healthy body. And we don't even know all the ways in which it is damaging because not enough research has been done.

Having a thought — just one is enough — makes permanent changes to our brains, perhaps damaging changes? "And we don't even know all the ways in which it is damaging because not enough research has been done." Or how about using alcohol, which is known and proven to be damaging? Or failing to spot our kids playing with daddy's blowtorch? Damaging, for sure.

There are loads of equally stupid responses I could offer, but I hope the point is clear? Even recognising what is "damaging" can sometimes be a matter of perspective.

We humans do, as we have always done, whatever we want to, without thought for future consequences. Whether it be allowing private citizens to own assault rifles, or permitting trans children to transition, we do what we decide, not what logic, reason, or the real world, push us toward.

In short, I really don't see that taking the discussion in this direction achieves anything useful*. Do you?



* — I refer here specifically to your constant references to "damage".

[Pattern-chaser]

It should be said that, before trans became viral, sometimes you'd read in the news about kids transitioning. But these weren't kids being gaslit by trans-obsessed PC parents that their childish experimentation meant they were trans. These were kids, who despite all attempts to normalise them, were so "trans-ish" that their parents had no choice but to relent.

In my left-leaning hippy way, I like to think this is always how it is. But I must accept that it isn't always the case. Even faced with decisions as difficult as these, we find ways to over-complicate matters, and obscure the real issues.

IMO, the best thing we can do for our kids, trans or otherwise, is to care for them in the loving and open-minded way that you describe here. More of my airy-fairy nonsense, eh?

[Fried Egg]

Having a thought — just one is enough — makes permanent changes to our brains, perhaps damaging changes? "And we don't even know all the ways in which it is damaging because not enough research has been done." Or how about using alcohol, which is known and proven to be damaging? Or failing to spot our kids playing with daddy's blowtorch? Damaging, for sure.

There are loads of equally stupid responses I could offer, but I hope the point is clear? Even recognising what is "damaging" can sometimes be a matter of perspective.

I don't really know what point you're trying to make here, no.

We try to protect children from damaging themselves by not letting them drink alcohol before they are an adult, from by having emotionally damaging responses to watching age inappropriate tv or films, and there are a whole host of other ways that we attempt to protect children. All things we allow them to do when they are an adult.

I don't really think you would dispute the damaging effects cross sex hormones could have on the body (such as rendering one infertile) and the more intrusive surgeries that involved destroying one's sexual organs (or the removal of breasts). I think what you are arguing is that sometimes this damage is worth while because of the benefits it may bring to the mental health of the individual in question.

Certainly, I can't deny that it's theoretically possible that the costs out weigh the benefits of transitioning, even as a child. But we can never really know so, in the case of children, I would always err on the side of caution.