I get the point, but it’s not a good way of defending it. The ADHD medication might be okay, but here is framed as an exaggeration, and the other one is not good.
Furthermore, many of those interventions are detrimental or at least dangerous. Mine was orthodontics and it ended terribly; today, I would need a surgery to correct all the damage caused. While I was a difficult case, it’s not uncommon. In recent years, braces are being reconsidered as they alter a developing skull, often atrophiating something while repairing something else. Sports in childhood can have an impact in adulthood. This one I’m also living it closely as my mother was one of those girls inspired by Nadia Comăneci to start gymnastics. Today, she’s living a hard late adulthood.
We’ve normalized not listening to children and thinking of them as our properties. Medical interventions (I literally pointed out the problem with my treatment and I was ignored) or the lack of them can be a sign of this. We need to balance their developing cognitive abilities with their autonomy, not shadowing their autonomy all together. That’s the argument. Telling people “things are already done, so what’s the problem?” is fallacious at best and counterproductive at worst.
It’s just “muh parental rights” and people clinging onto their power over others.
Essentiallly, if you’re not excercising overt control over your children, then you’re showing to those children that do get that kind of overt control, that there’s an another way of life. You have to essentially micromanage your children’s life well into their adulthood, just because some scummy adults that managed to steer their children into unwanted relationships and/or shitty jobs, and you’d offend them for it.
I kind of got that kind of treatment when it comes to jobs. My stepmother really wanted me to have a “manly job” instead of becoming a programmer, because she was “concerned of me” that I will end up too weak, and also she hated working on computers because they crashed thus she believed they’re “just a fad” (until facebook came). All while being too disabled to do said jobs. Things that shouldn’t hurt at all are really painful for me, likely due to a mixture of pain hypersensitivity (due to then undiagnosed autism) and some skin/collagen condition. But all of these did not matter, because parents even have the right to make mistakes from time to time, and they can’t be right all the time unfortunately. Result: starting college with minimal programming knowledge, while others already dabbled into OOP by that time.
For the reactionary, a parent’s horrible mistake is million times more important than the child’s own will, that could sometimes even save them.
Ok but let’s not further the anti adhd meds bandwagon. I’d be a high-school dropout instead of a college graduate without them
I’ve been without my ADHD meds for a couple days since II ran out and since I was changing the dosage I decided not to get a refill until then, and my God i am so annoying without them.
anybody who claims to not want to put people on ADHD medicine should have to sit next to me explaining F1 drivers and shit at a restaurant where I’m not getting the social cues to shut up
anybody who claims to not want to put people on ADHD medicine should have to sit next to me explaining F1 drivers and shit at a restaurant where I’m not getting the social cues to shut up
Gestures to the entirety of my personality and all of the Star Trek within
Mood
Let’s play youth football. CTE is even worse for children than adults, but hey sign this waiver for your kid.
I hereby declare that I shall not sue for damages in the less-than-likely event that my child’s skull cracks open
many intersex people had impromptu surgery performed on them after being born because the doctor determined that their genitalia did not conform to their standards of male or female. this typically happens with no parental support or consent, but even if the parents are made aware, it isnt exactly made apparent the ramifications of what will be done.
I’d like to bring circumcision into this discussion.
Any Healthcare provider that performs this on a child should be arrested for child abuse.
I like how the biggest reasons for it are either “I can’t spare the moisture for cleaning it, so it’s better to cut it off” and “the guy who invented corn flakes said foreskins are Satan’s eyelids”
I know! The idea that circumcision was introduced as a way to curb masterbation may or may not be true … but one has to admit the entire procedure and culture around it is a bit sketchy.
Little boy … you have been pre-emptively convicted of not washing your dick … in the future. You are dirty, you will get an infection … in the future … you nasty little shit … so we are going to cut you ✂️
There are a number of reasons why one could be medically necessary. I agree that medically unnecessary surgical procedures to infant genitals for purely cosmetic or cultural reasons are pretty unjustifiable, but “any healthcare provider… Should be arrested” is either a bit ill informed, or a wildly extremist position.
If we’re banning purely cosmetic or cultural changes to a child’s body, are we throwing out ear piercings and back braces and dental work, too? How about haircuts and hair dyes? How about vaccines, since these are now fully included in culture war politics? So much of this seems to boil down to a naturalist attitude towards children. “Just don’t change ANYTHING! Changing things is wrong!”
And the fact that its coming from people - like Elon Musk - who paid top dollar for IVF doctors to guarantee his children conform to his consumer preferences (you’ll notice he’s exclusively had male infant children) is even more obnoxious.
It’s very obviously just pot-stirring. Resent your parents for changing you. Resent your children for changing themselves. Medicalize resentment of everyone.
Brother, as someone who actively wants a circumsision, knock this off lmao
If I snip off the Snuffaluffagus trunk that I’ve got a foreskin, that shit isn’t growing back because it’s causing damage.
Ear piercings grow over. Back braces fix damage. Dental braces fix damage. Hair grows back. Vaccines prevent damage.
Fuck off or come up with a significantly better argument so this dismissal isn’t so trivial.
What a terrible excuse to be against bodily autonomy
I honestly have no idea where you’re going with this. You’re comparing carving the skin off a baby’s penis for basically no reason, to trimming their hair? Vaccines, back braces, and dental work are not purely cosmetic or cultural. And I have no idea what Elon Musk has to do with it, or where resentment comes into the conversation.
It’s entirely possible for most rational people to recognize that a practice was not a great idea, and change moving forward without resentment.
I don’t know if this is a strawman, or you’re trying to make your case against someone else.
giving a medically unnecessary ear piercing to a 1 year does sound like something that is potentially child abuse, yes
Weird fucking takes, dude… Maybe you’re projecting or something?
You do know that we’re talking about mutilating the genitals of infants, right? Just wanted to make sure you knew where you were.
If you have a good reason to continue doing it, I’m sure everyone here would love to hear it.
Pay millions for IVF so you can have only boys … wind up with a girl anyway. This just made me laugh. I knew Elon did thus, but it didn’t really register until you mentioned it.
That topic is far more nuanced and complicated than the naturalist cults like to portray, and I will aggressively reject any and all “appeals to nature”.
The human body is not remotely perfect, which is why the entire field of medicine exists. When it comes to circumcision there are legitimate health and hygiene considerations to be made. It is not arbitrarily “cultural” or “cosmetic”, though it is often portrayed as such.
I love how you’ve looked to dismiss the idea that cutting skin off of a babies genitals is damaging and inherently wrong, outside of medical emergencies, as an appeal to nature fallacy. Even if that was how it worked, it’s an informal fallacy.
will aggressively reject any and all “appeals to nature” as to the health effects of someone being beheaded!
If my foreskin was pulled back over the head of my penis, due to the sensitivity of the head, that would be quite uncomfortable for me. If I wanted to walk, I would have to adjust myself or I would be in a lot of discomfort. Yet, that’s how it is for someone who was circumcised without their consent.
The only conclusion is that there would have to be a significant desensitisation of that part of the penis. That desensitisation would also have to apply to the feeling during sex.
How is it that people in the 21st century still need to be told to leave babies genitals alone and not to cut bits off of them? Bonus points if you did it because yahweh like the smell of them rotting.
The only health reasons given are “In the future you are going to be too dirty to wash your dick and you will get an infection. We are gonna cut that dick … you filthy unwashed animal”
Invalidating ADHD doesn’t make trans people feel better, it only perpetuates ableist and medically misinformed views on ADHD.
Particularly women, minorities, and non-binary people, who have historically been severely underdiagnosed and neglected as is. Girls are 16 times less likely than boys to receive an ADHD diagnosis and treatment.
Women who speak out about their ADHD are often dismissed on social media as ‘self diagnosed pick me girls’ just seeking attention. In reality, many are speaking up against the ongoing crisis of medical neglect.
Untreated ADHD can put already vulnerable people into higher risk of developing clinical depression and other comorbid mental health issues. ADHD medication can be life saving, and calling it meth only serves to stigmatize the mental health issues ADHD patients go through, as well as discourage them from getting the help and medication they need.
If you call yourself an ally to trans people, that includes trans people with ADHD. There is no need to add to their intersectional struggles when they already have so much on their plate.
I don’t think the point was to put down people with ADHD, I think it was to point out the hypocrisy in not letting people control their bodies. I agree with your point though, getting my sister diagnosed was really frustrating for her :(
Then there’s kids playing contact sports. Rugby is fucking brutal.
Amphetamines is not the same as meth.
No, but my Vyvanse does specifically say “Methamphetamine…” on the bottle sooo…
Of course the dose is different, and the context too, but still.
It should say lisdexamphetamine on it.
While I distinctly remember reading what I thought was there, looking back at one of the bottles you are right. Still have that incredibly strong memory of the other thing, though.
No, but my Vyvanse does specifically say “Methamphetamine…” on the bottle sooo…
It most certainly does not.
If it says “methamphetamine” you should get a new pharmacist, because it’s an amphetamine, but not every amphetamine is methamphetamine.
Just like “root beer” says “beer” on the can, but it’s not the same as Guinness.
The Portion Makes The Poison
Almost as though there’s some kind of merit to professionalization of pharmacology.
Also in some cases the patient makes the poison. As does the situation.
In theory you could take small doses of street meth.
It’s still addictive, but I think much less so if it’s taken orally. Would probably help the ADHD but also make you super euphoric, if i had to guess… Pretty bad idea overall though.
Methamphetamine is still prescribed for ADHD in extreme cases. “Street meth” is exactly the same but with more impurities (assuming it hasn’t been cut with other drugs like fentanyl). It would be much worse for you because of all the harmful/carcinogenic impurities, but not any more addictive or euphoric (again, assuming it’s not cut with opiates)
edit: This is assuming, like the other commenter mentioned, that you stick to taking it orally. As soon as you change the route of administration to bypass the liver on its first trip through the blood stream (meaning literally any other RoA), both the “rush” and addictive potential get much larger.
The other commenter? I’m the one who said take it orally…
As I said it’s a terrible idea, but it would probably help ADHD symptoms.
Not the same, but according to wikipedia it is also sometimes used to treat ADHD
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methamphetamine
Its literally the first sentence of the “use” section.
Sorry i had no idea it was a thing in the US
It’s basically the last resort adhd medication. It’s because the way we classify medication means that potential for pharmaceutical benefit (as recognized by the federal government) is a factor in whether a drug has legal uses.
This results in the fun scenario where heroin (general analgesic and other opiate traits), cocaine (topical analgesic), and meth (adhd and narcolepsy treatment) are all more legal on a federal level than cannabis, lsd, and psilocybin.
The only reason I know this is, because one time I randomly read the wikipedia article about Meth. If it wouldn’t be for this, I wouldn’t have known this too.
yo me too
It’s not, but there is an FDA-approved drug with Desoxyn.
I don’t think the poster got that specifically, from my understanding that prescription is very rare compared to say Adderall which is an amphetamine but as you correctly point out not methamphetamine; but it can’t be ruled out that they actually got prescription meth.
I didn’t know you had that in the US. Here in france the only allowed adhd medication is methylphenidate
I’m German, but I do know about this from some years ago when I read up on drugs a bit.
Even career choices are altering people’s lives. Even if I have my guitar, sometimes I regret putting so much time, energy, and money into it, partly because of a very depressive period in my life, partly because some potential medical conditions I have make bending strings upwards on the fretboard extremely painful as it feels like my nail wants to separate from my skin, partly because my taste in music shifted a lot away from metal music. I wish I was spending that on art or something else, IDK. Still I don’t want to introduce a bill that would forbid people learning the guitar before the age of 25.
Removed by mod
actually i’ve heard from a ton of people that youth ballet training is apparently problematic to them
but not because of the medical complications that certainly do arise with it. instead, because of supposed youth sexualization.
I mean, a big component of professional ballet involves the use of beta blockers to prevent girls from showing the signs of puberty.
Some of that is on athletic grounds - maturity brings changes to the body that impede the performance of the ballerina. Some of it is purely aesthetics. In fact, until fairly recently, women professional Olympians would avoid puberty to maintain the lean look that judges preferred. Only in the mid-90s/early-00s did we begin to see the power figure skaters and gymnasts who took advantage of the increased mature muscle mass to outperform their younger peers. Someone like Simone Biles would never have moved passed the preliminaries in an 80s-era Olympic competition.
But you could play the same game with male athletes and steroids/HGH/etc. Practically every professional uses some kind of performance enhancing medication of nebulous legality. And the younger you start, the greater the benefits over your career.
I gotta ask, if we’re so worried about this, do we need to get rid of professional athletics entirely? Or are we going to accept some degree of young body modification and parental control over their bodies?
Generally all peak athletes started very young, probably because of the parent’s dreams and not the child’s. I would have a problem with a lot of those situations.
Yeah, my daughter had expressed interest in doing competition dance. She just had a recital this past weekend, after which she was like, you know, I don’t want to give up my weekends and all my time to competition stuff. I’ll still dance, for fun, but I don’t need the competition. I said hell yeah, because I also don’t wanna do it. I’m glad she doesn’t feel pressured to be ultra competitive, and can still get enjoyment from an activity.
That’s good parenting IMHO. Have the kid try stuff, and if they enjoy it - great. If they fall out of love with it, move on.
And then let’s not forget beauty pageants and professional kids sports in general. All of it in my eyes is extremely unethical. Kids should be doing their own growing up and their own clubs focused on meaningful growth not entertainment.
This is actually one of real problems of capitalism that no one is talking about. Since early investments are incredibly valuable in capitalistic societies kids with early entertainment training have advantage but using kids for entertainments is in practice simply unethical. This is equivalent of sexualizing kids early so they become sexy adults. Nasty stuff when you spend a minute actually thinking about.
Add in the fact that by tying athletics to universities many children are pressured into at the very least dedicating enough to compete on a university level in order to get scholarships.
Hell, in some cases that’s one of the concerns people have with trans athletes, and while I do have that concern in the atypical direction (there’s a large category of scholarships young trans people are increasingly being barred from, and some young trans people are being given a particularly harsh manifestation of the financial disadvantages associated with transition), but there’s also intense ablism and a strong absurdity to all of it.
The fact that its just normal in America that some teenagers will lose a scholarship because they get injured and that that will have a drastic change to their long-term finances is both on brand and fucking insane.
the right wingers don’t see any problem with this.
Dexies != meth.
I don’t think many people working outside pediatric healthcare really have an understanding about how comfortable healthcare providers are prescribing interventional care.
When diagnosing and treating a patient we come up with a plan of care that is weighted on total outcomes. Now this isn’t a perfect system, for example we may not completely understand the potential harm of new medications. However, we are creating the plan of care with the best information we have at the time. Taking potential side effects and weighing it against the potential harm that could occur without any treatment.
I specialize in pediatric orthopedics and rehabilitation…so take anything I say about gender affirming care with a grain of salt. However, the potential outcome for not treating gender dysphoria as I understand it is pretty bad…self harm and suicide are about as bad as an outcome as one could imagine. Now weigh that against the medications that are usually prescribed for gender affirming care which are well known, and most often prescribed without negative effect for a plethora of treatments ranging from precocious puberty, to monitoring rate of which growth plates close.
Hormone replacement therapy has been going on for decades and is very common place at any hospital that atends to pediatric patients. To claim that intervention isn’t appropriate for something with a potential total outcome as bad as suicide, based off “kids can’t consent” is a ridiculous notion considering that the same drugs are often prescribed to make sure a child doesn’t develop a limb length discrepancy after an orthopedic surgery.
Its also worth noting, that kids, especially when they are aware of their condition before puberty, are gonna have a really fucking bad time in puberty. Seeing your body change in a way, that is directly contradictory to what you want can be absolute hell. Theres also the possibility to prescribe puberty blockers and therefore stopping puberty. If a kid then later decides, that it does want to go through puberty they can stop taking the blockers. They won’t really have any long term changes from going through puberty some time later, but on the other hand you just made the life of all kids that dont want to go through puberty way better.
Given the prevalence of forced mutilation of intersex babies as well as medically unnecessary circumcisions, I humbly disagree that these procedures are “weighted on total outcomes”. Unnecessarily cutting off (part of) a baby’s penis is not comparable to being unaware of a new drug’s side effects. Every doctor who has performed that procedure was fully aware that it was medically unnecessary and did not have reason to believe the baby would not come to regret not being given a choice years down the road. I’d argue these procedures are institutionalized medical malpractice.
No shade on you personally because you seem to be approaching the topic rstionally, but I think it’s critical to acknowledge that the field of medicine still has very strong biases in these matters and is not nearly as Cartesian as it is sometimes made out to be. Especially on sensitive topics such as gender identity or reproductive rights doctors have a lot of latitude to be bigoted and to unilaterally deny necessary care.
Given the prevalence of forced mutilation of intersex babies as well as medically unnecessary circumcisions, I humbly disagree that these procedures are “weighted on total outcomes”.
As I said, it’s not a perfect system. However, a lot of the times the flawed treatments of their times were influenced by how physicians perceived cultural norms.
As cultural mores are adjusted and education within the medical community improves, treatment options are usually re-aligned to fit the science. For example circumcisions are becoming a thing of the past and intersex operations nare usually conducted after secondary sex organs develop.
Every doctor who has performed that procedure was fully aware that it was medically unnecessary and did not have reason to believe the baby would not come to regret not being given a choice years down the road. I’d argue these procedures are institutionalized medical malpractice.
Eh… Doctors are a slave to social mores as much as anyone is. They are unfortunately just as susceptible to belief as lawyers or politicians. There were beliefs that spouted about hygiene etc, but in reality those were just to validate belief systems held by the vast majority of the population. In the end they believed that the harm was not very significant to the pts overall health.
but I think it’s critical to acknowledge that the field of medicine still has very strong biases in these matters and is not nearly as Cartesian as it is sometimes made out to be.
I think it’s fairly obvious that the medical system has failed several minority groups, most recently trans people. I am proclaiming how medical providers should behave and how we were trained to treat all patients. Unfortunately, as you have stated, beliefs systems unjustly often interjects itself in medical care. Whether that be in prescribing birth control or administrating gender affirming care.
deleted by creator
Yeah, when you live in a society that treats you like shit for an immutable characteristic that tends to happen. It’s called minority stress, and it happens to cis queer people as well.
deleted by creator
Trans people just need to be loved and accepted like everyone else but unfortunately a lot of people really suck.
Point of order. Trans people do not just need to be loved and accepted. Sometimes when this discussion point comes up it’s under the context that if everyone was playing ball with pronouns and being nice then medical transition would be unnecessary. That is not the case.
While it’s true that one of the effects of medical transition means that strangers are more likely to read and not misgender you - being trans the feedback system isn’t dependent on outside observers. What a lot of people seem to think is that gender as understood by cis people, as a largely performative construct, is by and large not how trans people interact with gender.
I personally wish we would stop looking at trans healthcare from the sour perspective of needing to justify itself being a worthy endeavor or not strictly on the basis of suicide rates as though if something is not provably strictly lifesaving in every case it isn’t worthy.
because studies range from showing HRT helps a little to not at all at preventing suicide.
No they don’t. There are a couple of studies that are deliberately misrepresented by transphobes to imply this, and they often get passed around as fact, by people who aren’t familiar with the studies in question.
Firstly, there was this Finnish one https://mentalhealth.bmj.com/content/27/1/e300940
You can see more about the hatchet job that the New York Post did on that one here https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/56772/does-gender-transitioning-do-nothing-to-help-suicidal-ideation
Then there is this one https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3043071/. It’s older, and it is misrepresented to claim that the suicide rate of trans folk doesn’t change after transition. The thing about that study is that doesn’t even assess the impact of transition. The entire cohort of trans people in the study were post transition, and questions were asked about their lifetime suicide attempts, without comparing before/after transition data. So because 41% of trans people in that study had made at least one suicide attempt at some point in their lives, the claim was made that transition doesn’t help, because “41% of post op trans people have attempted suicide”. The lead author of this particular study has spoken out several times on the misuse of the study by transphobes with an agenda, but to this day, it keeps happening…
So, let me give you the actual data…
This is a consolidation of the findings of research on trans health care, and the impact of transition on the well being of trans folk. To summarise, they looked at 55 studies on the impact of transition. 51 of those found transition to be beneficial, and 4 of them contained mixed findings.
You’ve stumbled on one of the tools that transphobes use. Deliberate misrepresentation of the facts, so that they can push for trans folk to be cut off from transition related healthcare, all whilst sounding reasonable, and sometimes even supportive. That, and trans people in sports, were the two main wedge tactics that they used to open the door to the wave of transphobia now sweeping the world.
because studies range from showing HRT helps a little to not at all at preventing suicide
You’re misinformed, the evidence supporting HRT for those that want it is sufficient that withholding it is unethical. HRT alone not being able to overcome extreme minority stress for everyone doesn’t mean it’s not helpful or necessary.
While family and community support is extremely important, it can’t replace medical transition for those that want it. You can’t hug the dysphoria away.
deleted by creator
What I saw upon reading that stucy can be summed up with “most studies reached statistical significance, however they tended to have relatively low n values and that a lot of factors that could contribute to reduction in suicidality tended to converge so no individual factors could be isolated.”
Instead of using a single meta study (which itself has limitations) as a reason to declare that HRT has no effect on suicidality—which isn’t even something the meta study claimed—you could take a peek at the political climate for trans people right now and just not?
was just responding to the argument that any treatment is worth it when the alternative is suicide
That’s not the argument…
The argument is that treatment plans are developed by evaluating risk and reward.
The risk for not treating is very high, even if the treatment doesn’t have a high rate of efficacy as long as it doesn’t introduce further risk, it’s still a valid treatment.
That’s because of transphobia, not the treatment.
I’m old enough to remember the same argument being used to “prove” gays were unstable, and it’s still utter horseshit
I made the conscious decision when I was around 14 to not transition, because I knew that it would lead to a more difficult life.
I could not make it. I would be dead if not for transition in my early 20’s.
My life is still more difficult, and I struggle with suicidal ideation, but that is entirely related to the way society treats me. I have been chased out of my career field, I have been told I am disgusting, I have been threatened, I have been sexually assault. Those things have happened because I am trans, and they have made me suicidal. But denying me treatment would take away the one aspect - the comfort in my own body - that helps protect me from the decision to commit suicide.
and transitioning at 14 might on average result in a person integrating into cis-normative society more easily than transitioning after puberty in their 20s, this means less dysphoria, less job discrimination, less chance of being a hate crime statistic, etc. - we need to make it much easier for trans kids to get the help they need so they live healthier and happier lives.
We just don’t have any evidence or reason to think trans kids are very likely to be wrong about transitioning, and we meanwhile have a mountain of evidence telling us treatment is very effective and has unusually low regret rates … this is just so obvious from a medical and scientific viewpoint, the only hangup seems to be cultural lag.
Even if we are accepting that as true, that doesn’t really have anything to do with an individual patients treatment plan. You aren’t evaluating risk based on the general population, you are evaluating risk based on patient populations with the same diagnosis.
If any risk is mitigated with gender affirming care compared to patient populations who aren’t receiving care , and the risk of harmful side effects are minimal then the treatment plan is valid.
I don’t really see how you think that comparing them to the general population makes any sense?
That would be like someone saying that people receiving treatment for HIV are still more immuno compromised than the general population…well yeah, but treatment vastly improves their total outcomes.
That would be like someone saying that people receiving treatment for HIV are still more immuno compromised than the general population…well yeah, but treatment vastly improves their total outcomes.
this illustrates it so well, well done
The fact that bad shit is normalized isn’t a great argument in this instance.
Yes it is. The argument is that people having a moral panic over kids getting gender affirming care (which they erroneously believe to be bottom surgery, that’s another can of worms), which is shown to be safe and effective, are not having the same moral panic (and even are likely to be the same demographic enabling this behaviour) over actual, proven to be a disaster for your health activities, shows that all these people are simply transphobes.
It’s not transphobic to recognize a bad argument against trans hate. There are plenty of good arguments against it
Where transhobes do and do not direct their attention betrays their motivations.
Their motivations are very important.
The OP comment is not anti-transitioning, nor pro-child-meth.
could you be more cryptic?
I am trying, but I literally cannot think of a way to be more direct here.
The transphobe’s hypocrisy is being used here as evidence of their lack of sincerity. i.e., they’re conning people. They are conmen. Liars and cheats who believe whatever they have to to convince people to hate the gays too. They will constantly contradict themselves because they don’t care about consistency. The irrational fear that they feel is the only consistent position they hold. And so, they don’t care about children’s causes because they aren’t motivated by children’s causes.
I know that you already know this; I’m not trying to be condescending. What I think is that you are, like, debate-tricking yourself into disagreeing with something really easily understood by most people.
We are just talking about two different things. I took the first response to the top level comment to be saying the top level comment was transphobic. Which I was disagreeing with
I suppose. I mean, I was reacting to the suggestion that it was indeed a bad argument.
For what it’s worth, I do only see themoonisacheese saying that anti-transitioners are being transphobic.
Except it’s a strawman. Plenty of people are upset about over medication of children. As one of those children, kindly STFU and don’t speak for us.
As one of those children, have you witnessed fetishising of people who have had puberty blockers? Or is that class of predator rare and without influence?
Yeah I’m reading this and I’m like “I’m actually very much against both of these examples……” the sports shit with kids in general is insane and it’s just to help them stand out for capitalism reasons, which is also why mainstream people don’t see anything wrong with it, capitalism has footed the bill of normalizing genuinely bad things like turning kids sports from a fun way to make friends to a literal job with overbearing schedules and physically inappropriate levels of activity for young bodies and joints.
You’re supposed to not agree with these (mostly). The point is people who are against gender affirming care usually aren’t against them. They’ll make the argument it’s about “protecting the children” when it benefits them, but they’re really just reactionary conservatives who want to maintain the status quo. The status quo supports the two things in the OP, but is against gender affirming care, despite gender affirming care having large upsides and the other not as much.
…holy waffle tweet moment batman
As one of those children
Hey, just a heads up that admitting you are a minor online isn’t a good idea for lots of reasons, and that a number of lemmy instances will ban you for it (as they’re officially 16 or 18+ by instance rules) rather than accepting having to deal with all the various complicated laws about handling the data of underage users.
I was one of those children, Einstein. Think about how old I would have to be to be one of the overly medicated ADHD kids when that mostly happened in the 90s and early 2000s.
Get your white knight ass out of here.
Don’t come at me for missing context you didn’t include. You said nothing about the over medication of ADHD in your comment.
It’s right there. You can check it.
I’m sorry they didn’t hold you back enough for you to learn proper communication or emotional regulation. That must be tough.
Maybe don’t assume and give someone a lecture when it’s not your place to do so in the first place. Maybe you can go fuck yourself instead of trying to psychoanalyze someone you don’t even know and thinking that them being offended by it is proof of your superiority.
Also, scroll up and maybe you’ll see us talking about giving meth to children, aka Ritalin for ADHD. Maybe read the whole conversation.
Yes, there is discussion about ADHD, but none of that is part of this particular comment chain. It’s not tough to go “show context” all the way up to the top level comment in this thread, and it’s not anywhere between here and there. The only context in this thread is overmedication of children, and ADHD is not the only situation where that happens.
And as far as “lecturing” goes? You blew up over a single sentence. It’s a run on, so we can call it three sentences, whatever.
Also, I didn’t “psychoanalyze” you until you aggressively brought your own neurodivergence into the mix. Spoiler alert: I’m also one of those 90s-00s overmedicated ADHD kids. I’m calling out your personal lacking in emotional regulation because I have personal experience with it as well, and it’s obvious as shit.
you missed the point. children can give informed consent to things that might prove harmful down the line, like ballet.
not so much for ADHD meds, because parents often force these on them to make them compliant and as punishment.
there is no medication without side effects. ADHD meds can have bad consequences, but we should still allow people to take them based on informed consent. apply the same logic to kids on HRT.
I hate to break it to you about how many children are forced to do things like youth football and youth ballet…
Children can give informed consent? We’ve agreed pretty unilaterally as a society that that is fundamentally untrue. Especially at the ages where children are taken to ballet classes.
Children can give informed consent? We’ve agreed pretty unilaterally as a society that that is fundamentally untrue.
In every context? About everything? No, we have not. Just because a child isn’t old enough to consent to sex doesn’t mean they can’t give consent to anything at all. Maybe in the US, the only country that has not ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, where parental rights are so extreme and out of control that parents can hire people to abduct their child in the dead of night off to a Holes-esque labor camp, if not a “conversion therapy” brainwashing camp. But in more civilized countries, there’s more of a balance where children are gradually given more autonomy and rights appropriate to their age.
But even in the US, I’ll give an example. When I was in middle school, we were assigned to dissect frogs. I believed that the assignment was morally objectionable, and said that I would refuse to participate - I withdrew my consent. Most of the rest of the class did consent to the activity. My teachers accommodated me and a few other students by letting us do a computer simulation of it. But both my teachers and my parents wanted me to do it, the only objection came from me, expressing my own will and my own convictions.
In the US, there seems to be this neurosis that the parent-child relationship is something bordering on ownership, and there’s a corresponding fear of, “If I don’t own my child, then who does? The state?” This is why there is a preconception, especially among conservatives, that if a child comes out as any form LGBT+, they must have “gotten it from someone,” often, they assume, through abuse. In reality, teens are capable of making their own decisions regarding how to identify, as expressions of their own will - a teen can say “I’m not into girls” in the same way that I, when not even a teen, could say, “I’m not into dissecting frogs.”
Whether, and at what age, children can consent to things like ballet classes, Adderall, puberty blockers, and other forms of gender affirming care are valid questions to examine, they are not resolved by this oversimplified way of thinking that the ability to consent to anything flips on like a light switch at age 18. In the case of gender affirming care, not only have these questions been examined, and generally answered more in favor of the child’s autonomy, but they are also reexamined for each individual child on a case-by-case basis. Doctors are both careful about and (generally) supportive of gender affirming care.
where parental rights are so extreme and out of control that parents can hire people to abduct their child in the dead of night off to a Holes-esque labor camp, if not a “conversion therapy” brainwashing camp.
this reminds me of when I sat down and read this:
some of these camps are just so fucked up
The key you, (and many people in this thread, I can only reply to one person) are missing is the difference between consent and informed consent.
Children can consent to literally anything, and withdraw their consent at any time. In almost every case, you should respect the wishes of the child. Most of that consent or withdraw is harmless and helps the child establish boundaries and even learn about themselves.
A child is able to consent to participating in ballet classes, however, depending on the maturity of the child, they may not be able to grasp that they are doing irreparable damage to their feet; they might not know chronic illness, they usually don’t have a concept of just how long a human life is. So even if they are told directly, the “informed” part of informed consent needs a deeper understanding of actions and consequences than many children have.
With our current medical understanding (and it will probably be this way for a long long time) the line between being able to give informed consent and uninformed consent is blurred and is straight up different for different scenarios someone is in. We chose 18 in our society by basically picking a number out of a hat. It’s different in different societies and we know for a fact that it’s different person to person.
Consent when it comes to trans or questioning kids has been co-opted by the right so when you question how much someone should be allowed to go on HRT or get gender affirming surgery when they’re young, the knee-jerk assumption is that they’re completely anti-trans. If you look into the trans community there’s still a lot of healthy debate about what lines to draw. We have a lot of research on the effects of something like hormone blockers and it’s generally agreed that they are an effective treatment to young kids questioning their gender that only delays whatever puberty they choose until they can give their full informed consent (ideally after many hours of therapy). When people can give that informed consent is still up in the air.
I think it’s just a miscommunication/misunderstanding in that case. From my perspective, the level of information required to provide “informed consent” depends on the severity and importance of the decision, and the level of information a child can understand also depends on their age. I think we’re on the same page conceptually and just using different terminology.
I apologize for jumping to conclusions, that’s my bad.
This thread is about kids medically transitioning, by the time they’re undergoing puberty they’re teens or preteens. Not like six year olds who want to do ballet or whatever.
The point is people will allow (force) their children to do ballet, even at young ages, despite the consequences. Those same people will also say that older children can’t consent to gender affirming care. It’s hypocracy.
Removed by mod
Uh, do you want to rephrase that, because it sounds like you’re mad you can’t fuck kids.
you distorting the comment xd
No, that was me giving them the chance to clarify what they meant if their comment wasn’t them huffing about how preteens/teens can medically transition but not have sex with adults.
Anyway, as someone who is trans and used to be a kid, knowing your gender isn’t really anything like having sex.
Wtf? The fact that you are comfortable conflating those two wildly different topics is concerning.
First of all, being put on hormone therapy isn’t a child deciding their own gender. It is pausing puberty until they are old enough to make an informed decision about their own health and identity.
Secondly, what does gender identity have to do with pedophillia? Gender affirming care is all about harm reduction, not sexualizing literal children…
You seem so disappointed that statutory rape is a crime.
Republicans are opposed to gender-affirming care for teenagers because it makes some of the teens they want to fuck unfuckable in their eyes.
If kids can give informed consent doesn’t the entire argument for not fucking kids cause they can’t consent go right out the window? I do not believe kids can give informed consent because they don’t have the capacity, context or knowledge to foresee the consequences of their actions
Personally as a nearly 40 year old I would be horrified by 12 year old me making irreversible life changes for current me
12 year old you (unknowingly) made the irreversible life change of going through the default puberty. Plenty of people regret making that choice.
If kids can give informed consent doesn’t the entire argument for not fucking kids cause they can’t consent go right out the window?
What is with people being absolutely unable to reconcile ‘children should have some input over their own healthcare decisions, actually’ with ‘grown adults should not be able to sexually prey on children’?
Knowing your gender is so different to having sex that I’m having trouble believing anyone is bringing it up sincerely.
there is no medication without side effects. ADHD meds can have bad consequences, but we should still allow people to take them based on informed consent. apply the same logic to kids on HRT.
People aren’t put on ADHD medications or on hormone therapy because of any ability of informed consent. They are prescribed because a medical professional has evaluated that the outcome of their overall health with treatment is improved when compared to not being treated. The parents and the patient have a say…to a point. However a medical professional can be empowered by the courts to supercede the consent of the PT or the parent if and when deemed necessary.
Medications have the potential of negative side effects, it’s not guaranteed. Those potential side effects are weighted against the potential negative effect of inaction.
frankly medical processionals should have no say over whether a trans person gets HRT or not.
they should warn you of what might happen if you have health conditions but frankly those interactions aren’t common enough to justify this level of draconian gatekeeping in most societies.
this is why trans people on a DIY regimen often do much better than by asking for “professional” help because most cis doctors are evil, gatekeepers or too ignorant to know what’s good for us.
While I don’t agree that medical providers shouldn’t be involved in important healthcare decisions. Unfortunately, at this point I agree the American healthcare system has largely failed the trans community, among others.
I think medical providers should be doing their jobs and keeping their personal beliefs to themselves. If a patient is wanting to transition they should have access to a provider who can make that transition as easy and safe as possible.
parents often force these on them to make them compliant and as punishment.
That sentence is doing a LOT of heavy lifting. Why do you believe this?
I don’t know about them, they may have personal experience, but there was definitely a period in the 90s and 2000s when doctors were prescribing Ritalin as freely as opioids and it was advertised by some as a treatment for hyperactive kids. Kids won’t sit still in class? Just pop a pill and watch them become model students!
Ok, so… you know that happens when you give a normal child a stimulant? The same thing that happens to adults.
If you give a kid Ritalin and they don’t bounce off the walls, that’s a pretty good indicator they’re ADHD and you made the right choice.
I didn’t even know that Ritalin was a stimulant. It makes sense as an ADHD med that it would be, but I just knew how easily kids were buying it at school (even middle school, not just high school) because it seemed like practically anyone could get a prescription for it.
