Gender confusion

[Josh]

Sliceitup, you seem to act like you are some kind of "expert" on "intersex" people (a term that zero of the CAIS or other such people I have personally known have accepted for themselves). Why are you so obsessed with this?

Why am I obsessed with this? First, as background, I have ADHD and as a result I tend to go on intense deep dives into certain subjects.

OK.

I guess I’ll start using the term “people with DSD” so as to be more respectful. Thank you for that information. I don’t claim to be an expert. I hope I haven’t come across that way.

Actually, you could just call them "people". Lots of people have various diseases and disorders. You may call them people, men, or women.

DSD has been an interest of mine from the time I knew it existed. It didn’t seem to fit with what I had been told about the world and sex/gender. When Semenya’s case happened I read more about it. And then I read the book “Sporting Gender” which I highly recommend (I think the author is Joanna Harper, but don’t quote me.) Then I read a few of Alice Dregers books.

The existence of DSD kind of blew up my understanding of gender/sex. And I know that many do not think there’s a connection to transgender people, but I see some very big connections.

There is absolutely no connection at all. People with CAIS (which which I am most familiar) simply identify as women, seem like women, and act like women. They basically are women except with a disorder where some organs are missing, and they can't have children.

They are not transsexuals; they have not made a decision to be the way they are (unlike transsexuals); they are not associated with sexual violence and other types of sexual perversions.

Maybe I seem obsessed with it because I often bring it up during discussions. But I’m not doing that in order to score a point. I just genuinely want to know peoples opinions on it. I genuinely am interested in how people reconcile DSD with an absolute view of male and female gender.

Humans are either male or female. Males can reproduce in a male way. Females can reproduce in a female way. That is the definition for you. Some males and some females have a disorder that renders them unable to reproduce. CAIS is an example of one of these diseases.

The absolute remains: people are either male, or female. Not both, and not anything else. The CAIS people I know would not appreciate being dragged into your attempts to identify them as "LGBT" at all.

[Sliceitup]

The absolute remains: people are either male, or female. Not both, and not anything else. The CAIS people I know would not appreciate being dragged into your attempts to identify them as "LGBT" at all.

I do not believe that I have ever identified people with DSD as LGBTQ. If I did then please show me where so I can change that.

[Josh]

The absolute remains: people are either male, or female. Not both, and not anything else. The CAIS people I know would not appreciate being dragged into your attempts to identify them as "LGBT" at all.

I do not believe that I have ever identified people with DSD as LGBTQ. If I did then please show me where so I can change that.

Calling people with CAIS, PAIS, etc. "intersex" is the same thing. You have noticed the + after "LGBT" which usually means LGBTQQIA. Needless to say, lots of people don't wish to be associated with that political movement.

[ohio jones]

Well, you're the one who said they aren't dead. Yet in some cases they are. If regret is worth quantifying, it should include both the living and the dead.

And again, you're the one who said "they themselves made" the decision, yet now it's a decision made jointly with the parents. Unless a psychologist is involved, apparently?

As far as the threshold for making life-altering decisions, why should the age for gender reassignment (you're citing data as young as age 13 and asking where's the problem!) be lower than that for other major decisions? We are talking about more than purely cosmetic surgery.

It was a survey (or collection of 20+ surveys) so I'm assuming that dead people aren't answering. If you really want to know the answer you'll have to dig I guess.

I was pointing out that the data presented was misleadingly incomplete and thus the conclusions drawn from it were unreliable. Not volunteering to participate in a data war. Lol.

We are playing semantic games here. In every case of a transgender minor child it should be the child making the decision that they are transgender. They typically need their parents consent to ACT on that decision by pursuing any sort of medical care. I expect there are unusual cases where the parents and child are at odds and medical treatment proceeds. I don't know how common those are. I would definitely hope there are no instances of a parent pushing medical intervention that the child does not want. That would be tantamount to child abuse or Munchhausen by Proxy. And it would be the professional obligation of psychologists to catch that sort of thing. If they don't they would be engaging in malpractice.

Using the editorial "we" here, I see. Your communications would be improved by prioritizing quality over quantity. But I agree with your latest statement; nothing should be done without the full agreement of the child, both parents, and all of the relevant medical professionals.

As for your third question about what age children should be able to make decisions? That is what parents are for. To help them. Parents constantly make decisions for their children about other medical issues, where to live, what school to attend, what church to attend, etc. This is a BIG decision if we are talking about surgery (which is very rare in minors as the numbers upstream suggest). But I don't have a good answer for you as to what age is too young for parents and children to make the decision together. I expect each child is different.

I don't know that well over 200 cases a year and increasing (and that's just double mastectomies) is as rare as it should be. If parents are to help their children make decisions, I would hope they can help them make good decisions. They should be teaching them from infancy the truth about gender, so they are not confused when they reach their teenage years and be tempted to make destructive decisions.

[Ken]

We are playing semantic games here. In every case of a transgender minor child it should be the child making the decision that they are transgender. They typically need their parents consent to ACT on that decision by pursuing any sort of medical care. I expect there are unusual cases where the parents and child are at odds and medical treatment proceeds. I don't know how common those are. I would definitely hope there are no instances of a parent pushing medical intervention that the child does not want. That would be tantamount to child abuse or Munchhausen by Proxy. And it would be the professional obligation of psychologists to catch that sort of thing. If they don't they would be engaging in malpractice.

Using the editorial "we" here, I see. Your communications would be improved by prioritizing quality over quantity. But I agree with your latest statement; nothing should be done without the full agreement of the child, both parents, and all of the relevant medical professionals.

Semantic in that it is still the child deciding that they are transgender and/or deciding if they are satisfied or dissatisfied with the results of treatment even if the parents are involved in guiding that decision. It is still ultimately the child's decision or should be if the are moving forward with medical treatment. If we are talking about the survey results I am assuming that it is the child or patient who is answering the question, not the parent. But again, I could be wrong.

Also I would point out that none of these surveys actually give the reason for the dissatisfaction. I think it is most certainly the case that some patients are dissatisfied because the results were not as effective as they wanted. That they didn't turn out to be as feminine or masculine as they wanted or hoped. Which isn't dissatisfaction with the surgery itself, but that it didn't go far enough, or wasn't a magic bullet.

As for your third question about what age children should be able to make decisions? That is what parents are for. To help them. Parents constantly make decisions for their children about other medical issues, where to live, what school to attend, what church to attend, etc. This is a BIG decision if we are talking about surgery (which is very rare in minors as the numbers upstream suggest). But I don't have a good answer for you as to what age is too young for parents and children to make the decision together. I expect each child is different.

I don't know that well over 200 cases a year and increasing (and that's just double mastectomies) is as rare as it should be. If parents are to help their children make decisions, I would hope they can help them make good decisions. They should be teaching them from infancy the truth about gender, so they are not confused when they reach their teenage years and be tempted to make destructive decisions.

I agree. I think parents should be heavily involved in the lives of their children and guide them in every way, not just over issues of gender and sexuality. I also don't think in a free society it is the government's business to step in and overrule the decisions of parents, their children, and their medical professionals. And if there are mistakes made that is the price of living in a free society.

If we were to make a list of the top 100 threats to the health and welfare of children in this country I seriously doubt that 200+ children getting double mastectomies of which a tiny percentage come to regret that decision is going to make it into the top 100,or even top 500. There are vastly more serious threats to the health and welfare of children that we just shrug about. I have no idea why this one has been elevated to such a fever pitch. Actually I do know why. Culture war politics. But I haven't seen any rational arguments as to why it merits such attention, and especially government intervention. Not in a free society.

[Josh]

I agree. I think parents should be heavily involved in the lives of their children and guide them in every way, not just over issues of gender and sexuality. I also don't think in a free society it is the government's business to step in and overrule the decisions of parents, their children, and their medical professionals. And if there are mistakes made that is the price of living in a free society.

If we were to make a list of the top 100 threats to the health and welfare of children in this country I seriously doubt that 200+ children getting double mastectomies of which a tiny percentage come to regret that decision is going to make it into the top 100,or even top 500. There are vastly more serious threats to the health and welfare of children that we just shrug about. I have no idea why this one has been elevated to such a fever pitch. Actually I do know why. Culture war politics. But I haven't seen any rational arguments as to why it merits such attention, and especially government intervention. Not in a free society.

By the same argument, we shouldn't have to have prescriptions to get medicines for our children - we should just walk in and demand whatever medicine we feel is best (after talking to our doctor about it). Right?

Yet the government places a heavy regulatory burden on obtaining medicine, despite us being a "free society".

[Ken]

I agree. I think parents should be heavily involved in the lives of their children and guide them in every way, not just over issues of gender and sexuality. I also don't think in a free society it is the government's business to step in and overrule the decisions of parents, their children, and their medical professionals. And if there are mistakes made that is the price of living in a free society.

If we were to make a list of the top 100 threats to the health and welfare of children in this country I seriously doubt that 200+ children getting double mastectomies of which a tiny percentage come to regret that decision is going to make it into the top 100,or even top 500. There are vastly more serious threats to the health and welfare of children that we just shrug about. I have no idea why this one has been elevated to such a fever pitch. Actually I do know why. Culture war politics. But I haven't seen any rational arguments as to why it merits such attention, and especially government intervention. Not in a free society.

By the same argument, we shouldn't have to have prescriptions to get medicines for our children - we should just walk in and demand whatever medicine we feel is best (after talking to our doctor about it). Right?

Yet the government places a heavy regulatory burden on obtaining medicine, despite us being a "free society".

The FDA has a process for determining which medications should be prescription and which should be over the counter. I don't particularly have issue with that. Do you? All the hormones at question when it comes to transgender medication are prescription medications. No teen can walk into a Walgreens and buy hormones or hormone blockers. I have no problem with that. The government isn't prohibiting their use. Only requiring that parents or patients involve a doctor in the decision-making about their use. That isn't a heavy regulatory burden unless you are too poor to see a doctor. But over in the other Philadelphia thread you argued that there is no connection between money and health so I guess it isn't a real issue or "heavy regulatory burden", at least in your mind.

[ohio jones]

There are vastly more serious threats to the health and welfare of children that we just shrug about. I have no idea why this one has been elevated to such a fever pitch. Actually I do know why. Culture war politics. But I haven't seen any rational arguments as to why it merits such attention, and especially government intervention. Not in a free society.

Well, you've certainly done your part in calling attention to it and elevating the temperature of the discussion.

[Josh]

The FDA has a process for determining which medications should be prescription and which should be over the counter. I don't particularly have issue with that. Do you?

I never said I did, but you said the government shouldn't be involved at all, even though they are very obviously involved in regulating virtually every aspect of medical care.

All the hormones at question when it comes to transgender medication are prescription medications. No teen can walk into a Walgreens and buy hormones or hormone blockers. I have no problem with that.

Actually, the LGBTP+ agenda is that any person regardless of age should be able to get hormones or puberty blockers without a prescription and indeed quite a few trans activists have bragged that they make hormones available to children under 18 whose parents won't let them.

The government isn't prohibiting their use. Only requiring that parents or patients involve a doctor in the decision-making about their use. That isn't a heavy regulatory burden unless you are too poor to see a doctor. But over in the other Philadelphia thread you argued that there is no connection between money and health so I guess it isn't a real issue or "heavy regulatory burden", at least in your mind.

No, I don't think that dumping $1,000 cash on a pregnant mother will have much impact on better health outcomes. The link between a shower of cash and better health outcomes are quite tenuous.

[Ken]

The FDA has a process for determining which medications should be prescription and which should be over the counter. I don't particularly have issue with that. Do you?

I never said I did, but you said the government shouldn't be involved at all, even though they are very obviously involved in regulating virtually every aspect of medical care.

All the hormones at question when it comes to transgender medication are prescription medications. No teen can walk into a Walgreens and buy hormones or hormone blockers. I have no problem with that.

Actually, the LGBTP+ agenda is that any person regardless of age should be able to get hormones or puberty blockers without a prescription and indeed quite a few trans activists have bragged that they make hormones available to children under 18 whose parents won't let them.

There you go again putting words into my mouth. I never said the government shouldn't be involved in health care. Scroll up a few posts and you will find what I actually wrote which was:

• "I also don't think in a free society it is the government's business to step in and overrule the decisions of parents, their children, and their medical professionals."

Which I would probably qualify by saying "absent extremely compelling public health reasons"

Do you disagree? Are you willing to turn over to the government all medical decisions regarding your children?

Yes, there is a market in illicit drugs in this country and every country on the planet including those in which the there is a death penalty for drug dealing Question. Do you think illicit use of hormones by teens will INCREASE or DECREASE if some states prohibit legal use by teens? I think we all know the answer to that question. Do you think it would be a good thing or a bad thing if teens are forced underground to search for and use illicit drugs without medical supervision due to state prohibitions? I know what my opinion is, what is yours?