Puberty blockers to be banned indefinitely for under-18s across UK
Health secretary says emergency measures banning sale and supply will be made indefinite after expert advice
You're viewing a single thread.
Only for gender dysmorphia.
Which is still stupid to ban it for that, but a lot better than a total ban.
I don't know why people are so worried about it. I was over 6 feet tall and shaving before I was a teenager, if I had been given the option to press pause for a few years I would have jumped on it.
There is pretty much zero negative side effects to puberty blockers, it literally just delays it and early puberty is an issue and one that continues to trend in the wrong direction.
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/kids-health/puberty-starting-earlier-treatment-children-rcna125441
Obviously it can be much worse for girls than boys, but it was still fucking weird being a child and having people twice your age assume you were a peer.
I don't know why people are so worried about it
As far as I understand it, there are two main concerns that people have.
Personally, I'm broadly in support of trans rights and what people want to do when they're adults is their own business (as long as they're not hurting anyone), but I think allowing a child to make a decision that may impact them for the rest of their lives is a grey area to say the least. Until conclusive evidence is available I'd draw the line for a child at anything that's not 100% fully reversible.
Traditionally, puberty blockers would be used in cases where children start puberty at extremely young ages
Puberty blockers have been prescribed to transgender youth since the 90s, they're use in combating gender dysphoria is just as much a part of the puberty blocker tradition as their use in combating early puberty.
I would not want to be held accountable for the countless stupid things I said or beliefs I held at a young age, so I can see why it is a concern.
This subtle notion that slips into this discourse that being trans is akin to a make-belief thing is deeply frustrating. No, children were not just being given puberty blockers because they suddenly declared that they weren't their assigned gender. Getting puberty blockers required a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, something I can assure you is not an easy thing to get in this country, and even then still needed a specialist's approval.
This is the worst part of this 'debate', people are led to believe that it's the child deciding for themselves that they get puberty blockers despite the very stringent requirements on their use for trans youths. The point of this entire ordeal is not to protect kids (puberty blocker usage has a 4% regret rate), it's to build up the idea that no amount of safeguards can make the prescribing of trans healthcare acceptable to people you don't believe have full bodily autonomy. Where this goes from here is not looking for other areas in which our medical system is failing children, it's expanding the list of trans people who don't have full bodily autonomy. The Cass Review has already said that autistic people need special consideration.
I think allowing a child to make a decision that may impact them for the rest of their lives is a grey area to say the least.
There is very limited data regarding clinical proof that the long term use of puberty blockers is 100% reversible
There is about 40 years of real life use, and I think a good 20 years of study before that?
How much data from clinical studies and real world use do you need to feel comfortable?
Many people don’t trust children to make decisions that could impact them for the rest of their lives
But the permanent effects of puberty blockers are negligible...
What do you think is permanent about them?
I don't think you understand what Puberty Blockers are....
You seem to be wanting to ban something completely different.
The forty years worth of proof you are referring to is in almost all cases where the use was to block early puberty and then allow it to take its course at a normal age. There are very few case studies regarding the extended use of puberty blockers during the years where it would typically take place. I did mention these things.
How much proof I would need is a tough question because it obviously requires testing on children and it's an ethical issue. If a consensus of respected doctors were to agree, I wouldn't argue though.
At the end of the day, I'm not pretending to be an expert in puberty blockers, I'm saying that sometimes children need to be protected from themselves.
The forty years worth of proof you are referring to is in almost all cases where the use was to block early puberty and then allow it to take it’s course at a normal age.
Which is what would happen if they decided not to go thru with transitioning as an adult...
Which is what you said you're worried about.
Like, you're still talking about something besid s puberty blockers:
How much proof I would need is a tough question because it obviously requires testing on children and it’s an ethical issue.
Lots of children go on puberty blockers, the reason they're going on them doesn't change how safe they are.
At the end of the day, I’m not pretending to be an expert in puberty blockers,
I'm saying you don't seem to know what they are. The temporarily block puberty. That is it. You keep wanting to take it to a possible surgery later as an adult, and claim the blockers are a permanent and irreversible step towards that
When that is just factually incorrect.
It is not an opinion we disagree on. It is a fact and you are wrong.
I’m saying that sometimes children need to be protected from themselves.
Literally what puberty blockers are...
So children don't have to prematurely choose if they want to transition they take blockers until they are sure and mature enough to make that decision, which is almost always when they're over 18.
If they change their mind, they just stop taking blockers.
I legitimately have no idea how to state it any plainer than this.
Which is what would happen if they decided not to go thru with transitioning as an adult...
That is quite obviously an assumption. You are extrapolating data and although I see the logic of your argument, it's bad science. The rest of your comment is based on this premise.
What?
You said:
The forty years worth of proof you are referring to is in almost all cases where the use was to block early puberty and then allow it to take it’s course at a normal age.
And I replied:
Which is what would happen if they decided not to go thru with transitioning as an adult…
If someone goes on puberty blockers, decides not to transition...
Then that is:
where the use was to block early puberty and then allow it to take it’s course at a normal age.
You keep saying your issue is with puberty blockers, but the only complaints you have is minors transitioning.
Since that doesn't happen, you seem to be mad at blockers
I've said everything I have to say and I can see trying to explain myself further will be fruitless.
If you honestly think that a child could block puberty up to the age of 18 or further and then change their mind and go through a normal puberty like nothing ever happened, then good for you, personally, I'm doubtful.
You know you can just not reply...
You don't need to reply and say you're not replying again like it's a warning.
I am fully ok with you spreading less misinformation about simple science on the Internet. It would be better if you actually understood anything we just talked about. But at this point just being silent is helping, so at least you kind of did the right thing in the end.
It's not a warning, I'm just old enough to know pigeon chess when I see it.
Who knows, maybe we'll get twenty years down the line, the evidence will be there and I'll be amazed at how wrong I was!
Good luck to you, I wish you all the best.
I’m just old enough to know pigeon chess when I see it.
You keep saying that, as you actively keep shitting on the chess board.
I explained this as patiently and simply as is possible...
If you're gonna keep replying just admit your problem with puberty blockers is their existence allows adults to transition easier.
It's a bigoted opinion, but at least it would be honest
Vaccines can have devastating permanent side effects. Should parents no longer vaccinate their children?
The answer for both is:
Whichever option does less harm should be taken. A delayed puberty, despite potential long-term risks does less harm than a trans child going through the "wrong" puberty.
Besides, due to the start of puberty having a pretty large range there should in theory be little harm until the age of 14 or so. And at that age children are much more capable of deciding on medical treatments than as preteens.
The main difference with vaccines is the overwhelming medical proof of the benefits, that's something that currently isn't there with the use of puberty blockers during the years you would typically go through it.
I do somewhat agree with your less harm premise. If a child literally threatens to kill themselves, then as a parent you'd feel like you had little choice in the matter, however if there are permanent side effects and the child, now as a young adult starts regretting their decision, it's going to be shit for everyone.
There is significant proof of benefits:
Positive outcomes were decreased suicidality in adulthood, improved affect and psychological functioning, and improved social life. Adverse factors associated with use were changes in body composition, slow growth, decreased height velocity, decreased bone turnover, cost of drugs, and lack of insurance coverage.
https://doi.org/10.1111/camh.12437
I can't vouch for the quality of this literature review (because I don't want to take an hour or more to read a paper for a Lemmy comment), but usually literature reviews show a fuller picture than individual studies.
Also, this sentence is in the conclusion:
Although large long-term studies with diverse and multicultural populations have not been done, the evidence to date supports the finding of few serious adverse outcomes and several potential positive outcomes.
If puberty blockers are not reversible and if the person decides that they are not trans in later life, then the consequence would be that they are stuck in a body that doesn't match their self-image.
If that sounds bad to you, well ...
This you at 12?
