I agree completely with Fist. In fact, I'm looking for a "good post" add-on for the board, just so I can thank his and WF's posts.
However, I just want to clarify one point..."transitioning" for minors does NOT involve gender re-assignment surgery. No surgery for that for minors anywhere in the world as far as I'm aware.
When the term is (erroneously) used for children, what it refers to is medication that blocks the hormones that induce puberty. (Transitioning being much more difficult after the changes to the body caused by puberty.)
It is 100% reversible. Stop taking the meds, and puberty will start just as it would have without them, albeit a little later.
(So much of this is reminiscent of the "Satanic Panic." Fear, doubt, uncertainty and misinformation designed to drive emotional responses. Remember the razor-blades in Halloween candy? The vast majority of 200 cases since 1958 were shown to be hoaxes.)
Avatar wrote: ↑However, I just want to clarify one point..."transitioning" for minors does NOT involve gender re-assignment surgery. No surgery for that for minors anywhere in the world as far as I'm aware.
Google the name SB mentioned. Layla Jane.
All lies and jest
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest -Paul Simon
An exception that proves the rule perhaps. Definitely should not be happening. The meds I'm fine with, agree that surgery should not happen until the age of legal responsibility.
I am surprised that cherry picking the worst apple you can find in the bunch (to mix metaphors), and then using as a basis to generalize and then conemn the entirety, is considered a valid argument by anyone. Yet we have two occasions in the last two pages.
I don't know about anyone else but I wasn't doing any of that. I merely pointed out that gender surgery does happen to minors and if anyone does a quick web search on their own, they will find that it happens more than they might think.
I am against irreversable gender surgery to minors. Once someone, wanting surgery of that type, is an adult they can make their own decisions and chances are will be more clear on the ramifications of it. Heck most states (45 at last count) wont allow minors to get tattoos and yet gender surgery is even more invasive.
We miss you Tracie but your Spirit will always shine brightly on the Watch
Yeah, hormone treatment I'm fine with, not so much surgery at young ages. That said however, I also don't think that the fact that it has been done in some cases is sufficient grounds for denying all forms of treatment to minors either.
wayfriend wrote: ↑
I am surprised that cherry picking the worst apple you can find in the bunch (to mix metaphors), and then using as a basis to generalize and then conemn the entirety, is considered a valid argument by anyone. Yet we have two occasions in the last two pages.
Also not sure what you mean. Is it possible that there is a miscommunication/misunderstanding here?
Who’s condemning anyone?
Is it surgical procedure that you are identifying as the worst apple (kudos on metaphorical-fusions lol ) but even if that is your meaning ~ I don’t believe anyone is condemning transgenderism and certainly not trans children.
Sometimes humans can benefit from assistance in communications to clarify assumed meaning from actual meaning.
keep smiling
'Smoke me a kipper .. I'll be back for breakfast!'
Skyweir wrote: ↑Is it possible that there is a miscommunication/misunderstanding here?
Always.
But I don't want to run afoul of the rules. So I am not pursuing it.
But here's how I think.
If someone says "I'm for A, but not when exceptional-case-B", then that's one thing.
If someone says "I'm not for A, cuz of exceptional-case-B", well, that's bad apple generalization.
And if someone responds to "Are you for A?" with "I don't like exceptional-case-B", well, then they are also bad apple generalizing, but they are implying rather than stating "I'm not for A". Then later on they will say "I never said I wasn't for A." The double negative denial. As I see it, with all that opportunity to say "I'm for A", but not saying it, but instead saying all this other stuff, well, they're not for A, and just covering their ass. Which is why responding with, and only with, "I don't like exceptional-case-B" is bad apple generalization.
I do not think there is a perfect solution to the issues of children saying they were born with the wrong biological gender, and they want to become, as much as is possible, the opposite biological gender. No approach is free from the possibility of harm and regret.
I am not for children getting gender confirmation, aka gender reassignment, surgery. I don't think children are mature enough, experienced enough, to make such a monumental decision. Any who regret the decision are stuck with it. I don't think all parents know what's best for their children, or that any parent always knows what's best for their child, so I don't think it should be allowed even with a parent's permission.
I do not like the idea of giving hormonal treatment to children to pursue this. However, I think the harm chemically opposing a growing body's natural growth is less important than the emotional harm not allowing it in support of the child's feelings would cause. Any who regret the decision can stop, and there may be little lasting physical harm. Possibly just behind in development. When you're 40, it doesn't matter if you got your period when you were 13 of 20.
I think supporting them to live as the gender they truly are is better than opposing them. I think opposing those who were born with the wrong biological gender will cause then great harm. Meanwhile, any who are faking it (for whatever reason a child would fake such a think), confused, just having fun, or attempting to be rebellious, would have the freedom to live as they want to live, and see what it is they truly feel and want.
Even supporting them to live as the gender they truly are is an imperfect course of action. Does that include letting them use the bathroom of the gender they truly are? If someone born with a penis does not feel comfortable being in the bathroom with others who were born with a penis, but someone born with a vagina also does not feel comfortable being in the bathroom with someone with a penis, how is the situation resolved? It doesn't seem right to tell the one who is biologically and truly a girl that she must share the room with someone with a penis if she is not comfortable with it. Otoh, telling the one with a penis that that bathroom is off limits while that girl is in there is saying "We aren't really going to let you live as a girl when it comes right down to it."
All lies and jest
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest -Paul Simon
And society is still trying to figure this out. I suspect as, with many laws and legislation, there will never be a perfect solution through legislation and it will go back and forth. A little empathy all around would go a long way. But with people it can be "all about me" or "all about my and my kid", forgetting that there are other kids, on both sides that are also trying to grapple with this.
AV,
that sounds easy but what about the larger facilities? What about gym changing rooms? What about locker rooms? Some of these are not fixed by just attaching a door to a stall.
We miss you Tracie but your Spirit will always shine brightly on the Watch
Yes, I was talking about multi-user bathrooms. It couldn't matter less if you use the same single user bathroom that anybody of any other gender used previously. But should a 13 year old girl who is new to the joy of menstruation be required to walk past someone with a penis in order to go into the stall and take care of things? Would many grown women feel comfortable in that situation?
All lies and jest
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest -Paul Simon
I have always wondered whether the bathroom issue people have thought through what it really means to use the bathroom of the gender you had at birth. I think a burly guy with a beard using a women's room in the standing position isn't going to fly over too well with many folks. Said burly guy having been born a girl. I mean, no one is going to know that burly guy was a girl. He's just a burly guy. In the women's room.
In fact, any burly guy can CLAIM to have been a women once. So it's actually not solving the problem it is purported to solve. In fact, it's making it even worse - a bad actor guy doesn't even have to pretend to be a woman to use the women's room.
Which is why I am convinced that this whole angle is really more about throwing out plausible impediments than having a real concern.
That is an excellent example of telling someone what their thoughts or beliefs are. I'm not deleting it, because it can stand as an example. Your point could have been perfectly made without telling me (You're presumably talking to me in response to my post immediately before yours) what my words are "really more about," and we could have responded to your rebuttal.
Don't presume to know anyone's mind. I will not have the Close's atmosphere turned into this kind of negativity.
All lies and jest
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest -Paul Simon
I said presumably me, which, of course, admits to the possibility that it was someone else you were responding to. However, your response was what it was, regardless of who you were responding to. You are convinced someone does not have a real concern. Counter the points someone makes all you want. Quote them all you want while countering their points. (Quoting the words you are countering also eliminates the uncertainty of who you are responding to.) But keep your thoughts of what someone's real motivations are out of the Close.
All lies and jest
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest -Paul Simon
I didn’t read your interpreted meaning in wayfriends post Fist.
Fist, I think you’re absolutely right to clamp down on assumptions and generalisations but they are really hard to identify and clearly accurately.
My reading of wayfriends post was that it was supportive of most folks concerns about the practicalities around unisex bathrooms.
I personally agree with Av that all bathrooms could be unisex ~ I think that’s absolutely the case in different countries.
Yes there are obvious issues and expectations that will need navigating. There’s no need to sexualise bathrooms ~ a lot of issues can be managed with privacy screens and stall doors.
For me personally this is relatively new territory but what I read here (unless I’m missing sarcasm or mal-intent) is that it’s new to all of us ~ and what I’m reading overwhelmingly is that we all want to accommodate the trans reality and to support kid’s experiencing gender identity issues.
I see little value-add in summarily assuming posters intent is antagonist.
keep smiling
'Smoke me a kipper .. I'll be back for breakfast!'
) but even if that is your meaning ~ I don’t believe anyone is condemning transgenderism and certainly not trans children.