You’re getting downvoted because you’re repeating false rhetoric.
No, pretty much nobody thinks a child should be having a sexual relationship with whomever they want. However, teens do have those relationships, and most of us acknowledge it happens and are generally ok with it provided there aren’t clear signs of abuse.
Likewise, no one thinks a child should medically transition. However, many of us think teens should be able to medically transition. In fact, decisions about transitioning are often happening several years later than decisions about sex.
Your hypothetical example was to give people a mental image of 6 and 7 year olds when you know damn well the conversation is about 16 and 17 year olds. And if you genuinely weren’t aware, you are now, so it’s time to rethink your position.
If you want to talk about these decisions in the age group where they’re actually happening, then sure, let’s talk. But it’s not going to be conversational if you’re not willing to start from a position of intellectual honesty.
I’m getting downvoted because I made a strongly worded statement that makes a parallel that makes people uncomfortable. It’s easy to push a button and feel like you’ve somehow confirmed your social values. It doesn’t bother me. If they don’t speak up they had nothing to contribute.
No, pretty much nobody thinks a child should be having a sexual relationship with whomever they want. However, teens do have those relationships, and most of us acknowledge it happens and are generally ok with it provided there aren’t clear signs of abuse.
However we aren’t okay with early teens having those relationships outside of controlled environments (age etc.). You can decide as long as it’s within our parameters. And while this is happening - we still legally eviscerate teens that have sex with each other. I digress.
Likewise, no one thinks a child should medically transition. [truncated] Your hypothetical example was to give people a mental image of 6 and 7 year olds when you know damn well the conversation is about 16 and 17 year olds. And if you genuinely weren’t aware, you are now, so it’s time to rethink your position.
I’m all for it at 16 or 17. This is being done on/to 12-15 year old highschoolers. This is the target age range I was looking at as well. I selected an ambiguous age because it drove the point home. I know damn well what I wrote and why I wrote it. Everyone loves to assign additional meaning to someones actions- not dissimilar from forcing kids into a risky decision early on in their development.
If you want to talk about these decisions in the age group where they’re actually happening, then sure, let’s talk. But it’s not going to be conversational if you’re not willing to start from a position of intellectual honesty.
I’ve been nothing but honest. I come from a family of educators and medical professionals. My opinions are founded based on my experiences, my friends experiences, and my families experiences. But I guess intellectual honesty isn’t that. Please direct me which line I need to intellectualy fall into?
Where are you getting that 12 year olds are medically transitioning? Standard of care is 16+ and only recently has WPATH given the opinion that down to 14 may be appropriate in some cases.
Also, no one is “forcing” these kids into any sort of decision. These decisions are being made between the patient, parents, and doctor after thorough evaluation and discussion take place.
16+ is the age of consent depending on where you live. My stance is focused on prior to that age. I have indicated as much in other responses. People are saying it should be started to counteract puberty which for many starts as early as 12. Within that scope in mind… I imagine my stance is a bit more logical.
There was a time when it was almost trendy to have a child who was gay. It was a disgusting period and it highlighted how people would project their ideals and ideas onto their kids. I had a friend I cared for deeply struggle with some fallout related to that. There is a reason I stress informed consent opposed to what I’d describe as guided consent: It’s their decision and they should make it when they have been given sufficient time and counseling to be certain. This isn’t a binary discussion - there’s a lot of nuance.
“People are saying” is not the medical standard of care, and medical transition does not counteract puberty. Regardless of what “people are saying,” doctors are not routinely offering medical transition to 12 year olds.
If you want to have the conversation, as you put it, it helps to get the basic facts straight.
let’s not be pedantic to try to weasel out a point. Let me clarify: people [in this thread] have stated it is a method to prevent the results of puberty… which unless I am mistaken can start quite early (12 and earlier.) My statements echoed how ridiculous that is… so thank you for the concern but my facts were straight.
Forgive me if I’m misremembering as your original post appears to have been deleted, but I distinctly recall you mentioning an “irreversible” decision to medically transition. Though medical transition is actually partially reversible, I felt it was pretty clear we were both talking about medical transition (as opposed to surgical transition, which is irreversible.)
Puberty suppressing medications have been used for a wide range of medical conditions for the last 40 years. They are not the same as medical transition, and they are reversible. So it appears you may be conflating two different therapies that are typically taken years apart.
It really is a shame a lot of that got deleted as we all were referencing off it. The reason given didn’t fit as the discussions, while heated, were mostly civil.
I forget my exact choice of words (which is frustrating) but in essence I said that a pause doesn’t exist. It is a chemical process being blocked. It doesn’t run it back for the missed time after the blockers go away- it simply runs its remaining time out. I recall acknowledging that while yes blockers have been in use for some time the dosage and effect desired were different: think reducing a flow rather than outright turning it off. The result and long term effects are different and there are far fewer studies on the latter. I made an off the cuff comment about not wanting to use children as test subjects I believe.
All of that more or less to explain my position that outright blocking so early can have lasting effects that may threaten the health of the person later in life. This is why I think the use of pause and the downplaying of potential side effects is in poor taste or disingenuous.
I actually don’t think I saw any of your posts talking specifically about puberty blockers, so thank you for summarizing.
I am not sure what you mean by “missed time” and “runs its remaining time out.” GNRH agonists work by downregulating the pituitary gland, which results in decreased hormone secretion. When those hormones stop, so does puberty. When those hormones resume, puberty resumes, typically 6-18 months after stopping the med. There is no magical set of checkboxes or hidden time schedule the body must follow: the entire process is hormone-mediated. “Arrest” is the correct medical term to describe this process, though “pause” is a good non-medical substitute.
You are incorrect about the dosing: it is comparable to that for use in other conditions. For example, for leuprolide (one of the most common meds used,) the starting dose is 3.25 mg per month or 11.25 mg every 3 months with a max of 22.5 mg every 3 months. This is comparable to the dosing for adolescent endometriosis and fibroids, and lower than the dosing for central precocious puberty (7.5-15 mg monthly or 11.5-30 mg every 3 months.)
Leuprolide has been used in children as young as 1 year old and can be continued until 11 or 12 for central precocious puberty. Endometriosis and fibroids are teen indications, so it has been used for children of all ages (as well as adults of all ages.) The result and intended effect are the same as central precocious puberty or for kids with growth hormone deficiency: to arrest puberty temporarily, at which point it can be safely resumed. The big difference is that the blocking for precocious puberty happens much earlier and for much longer, while the blocking for growth hormone deficiency happens at the same time (start of puberty.)
It’s important to note that people who take a treatment are not “test subjects.” Test subjects are those enrolled in clinical trials. They are given informed consent related to the trial, enrolled with strict parameters, and followed-up on in a systematic way. “Leuprolide Acetate for Puberty Suppression in Transgender and Gender Diverse Youth: A Comparison of Subcutaneous Eligard Versus Intramuscular Lupron” (2022) is an example of a study that used test subjects. You going to the doctor and getting a medication is not.
I’m willing to wager that you were perfectly fine letting endocrinologists use their medical expertise to judge whether giving medications like leuprolide to toddlers and young children is medically necessary, and that your objection to it and similar meds magically appeared when those same doctors judged it medically necessary to give these same medications to transgender early teens. If this is indeed the case, it raises the question of whether you’re actually concerned about these medications, or whether you’re actually using it as an excuse to block access to safe and effective medical treatments for trans teens.
You’re getting downvoted because you’re repeating false rhetoric.
No, pretty much nobody thinks a child should be having a sexual relationship with whomever they want. However, teens do have those relationships, and most of us acknowledge it happens and are generally ok with it provided there aren’t clear signs of abuse.
Likewise, no one thinks a child should medically transition. However, many of us think teens should be able to medically transition. In fact, decisions about transitioning are often happening several years later than decisions about sex.
Your hypothetical example was to give people a mental image of 6 and 7 year olds when you know damn well the conversation is about 16 and 17 year olds. And if you genuinely weren’t aware, you are now, so it’s time to rethink your position.
If you want to talk about these decisions in the age group where they’re actually happening, then sure, let’s talk. But it’s not going to be conversational if you’re not willing to start from a position of intellectual honesty.
I’m getting downvoted because I made a strongly worded statement that makes a parallel that makes people uncomfortable. It’s easy to push a button and feel like you’ve somehow confirmed your social values. It doesn’t bother me. If they don’t speak up they had nothing to contribute.
However we aren’t okay with early teens having those relationships outside of controlled environments (age etc.). You can decide as long as it’s within our parameters. And while this is happening - we still legally eviscerate teens that have sex with each other. I digress.
I’m all for it at 16 or 17. This is being done on/to 12-15 year old highschoolers. This is the target age range I was looking at as well. I selected an ambiguous age because it drove the point home. I know damn well what I wrote and why I wrote it. Everyone loves to assign additional meaning to someones actions- not dissimilar from forcing kids into a risky decision early on in their development.
I’ve been nothing but honest. I come from a family of educators and medical professionals. My opinions are founded based on my experiences, my friends experiences, and my families experiences. But I guess intellectual honesty isn’t that. Please direct me which line I need to intellectualy fall into?
Where are you getting that 12 year olds are medically transitioning? Standard of care is 16+ and only recently has WPATH given the opinion that down to 14 may be appropriate in some cases.
Also, no one is “forcing” these kids into any sort of decision. These decisions are being made between the patient, parents, and doctor after thorough evaluation and discussion take place.
16+ is the age of consent depending on where you live. My stance is focused on prior to that age. I have indicated as much in other responses. People are saying it should be started to counteract puberty which for many starts as early as 12. Within that scope in mind… I imagine my stance is a bit more logical.
There was a time when it was almost trendy to have a child who was gay. It was a disgusting period and it highlighted how people would project their ideals and ideas onto their kids. I had a friend I cared for deeply struggle with some fallout related to that. There is a reason I stress informed consent opposed to what I’d describe as guided consent: It’s their decision and they should make it when they have been given sufficient time and counseling to be certain. This isn’t a binary discussion - there’s a lot of nuance.
“People are saying” is not the medical standard of care, and medical transition does not counteract puberty. Regardless of what “people are saying,” doctors are not routinely offering medical transition to 12 year olds.
If you want to have the conversation, as you put it, it helps to get the basic facts straight.
let’s not be pedantic to try to weasel out a point. Let me clarify: people [in this thread] have stated it is a method to prevent the results of puberty… which unless I am mistaken can start quite early (12 and earlier.) My statements echoed how ridiculous that is… so thank you for the concern but my facts were straight.
Forgive me if I’m misremembering as your original post appears to have been deleted, but I distinctly recall you mentioning an “irreversible” decision to medically transition. Though medical transition is actually partially reversible, I felt it was pretty clear we were both talking about medical transition (as opposed to surgical transition, which is irreversible.)
Puberty suppressing medications have been used for a wide range of medical conditions for the last 40 years. They are not the same as medical transition, and they are reversible. So it appears you may be conflating two different therapies that are typically taken years apart.
It really is a shame a lot of that got deleted as we all were referencing off it. The reason given didn’t fit as the discussions, while heated, were mostly civil.
I forget my exact choice of words (which is frustrating) but in essence I said that a pause doesn’t exist. It is a chemical process being blocked. It doesn’t run it back for the missed time after the blockers go away- it simply runs its remaining time out. I recall acknowledging that while yes blockers have been in use for some time the dosage and effect desired were different: think reducing a flow rather than outright turning it off. The result and long term effects are different and there are far fewer studies on the latter. I made an off the cuff comment about not wanting to use children as test subjects I believe.
All of that more or less to explain my position that outright blocking so early can have lasting effects that may threaten the health of the person later in life. This is why I think the use of pause and the downplaying of potential side effects is in poor taste or disingenuous.
I actually don’t think I saw any of your posts talking specifically about puberty blockers, so thank you for summarizing.
I am not sure what you mean by “missed time” and “runs its remaining time out.” GNRH agonists work by downregulating the pituitary gland, which results in decreased hormone secretion. When those hormones stop, so does puberty. When those hormones resume, puberty resumes, typically 6-18 months after stopping the med. There is no magical set of checkboxes or hidden time schedule the body must follow: the entire process is hormone-mediated. “Arrest” is the correct medical term to describe this process, though “pause” is a good non-medical substitute.
You are incorrect about the dosing: it is comparable to that for use in other conditions. For example, for leuprolide (one of the most common meds used,) the starting dose is 3.25 mg per month or 11.25 mg every 3 months with a max of 22.5 mg every 3 months. This is comparable to the dosing for adolescent endometriosis and fibroids, and lower than the dosing for central precocious puberty (7.5-15 mg monthly or 11.5-30 mg every 3 months.)
Leuprolide has been used in children as young as 1 year old and can be continued until 11 or 12 for central precocious puberty. Endometriosis and fibroids are teen indications, so it has been used for children of all ages (as well as adults of all ages.) The result and intended effect are the same as central precocious puberty or for kids with growth hormone deficiency: to arrest puberty temporarily, at which point it can be safely resumed. The big difference is that the blocking for precocious puberty happens much earlier and for much longer, while the blocking for growth hormone deficiency happens at the same time (start of puberty.)
It’s important to note that people who take a treatment are not “test subjects.” Test subjects are those enrolled in clinical trials. They are given informed consent related to the trial, enrolled with strict parameters, and followed-up on in a systematic way. “Leuprolide Acetate for Puberty Suppression in Transgender and Gender Diverse Youth: A Comparison of Subcutaneous Eligard Versus Intramuscular Lupron” (2022) is an example of a study that used test subjects. You going to the doctor and getting a medication is not.
I’m willing to wager that you were perfectly fine letting endocrinologists use their medical expertise to judge whether giving medications like leuprolide to toddlers and young children is medically necessary, and that your objection to it and similar meds magically appeared when those same doctors judged it medically necessary to give these same medications to transgender early teens. If this is indeed the case, it raises the question of whether you’re actually concerned about these medications, or whether you’re actually using it as an excuse to block access to safe and effective medical treatments for trans teens.