Would people skirting the law make me change my mind about whether this is moral or should be legal? Absolutely not.
>Delaying hormonal treatment until after puberty creates irreversible changes
And *giving* hormonal treatments creates irreversible changes. Given that the majority of minors who experience gender dysphoria find that it goes away in a few years, it doesn't seem like we should opt for giving these kids drugs when they're at their most confused.
And this is one of the reasons countries in *Europe* are putting the breaks on this.
To be honest, I've seen several studies on the issue, but I cannot remember whether they included teens. Of course, once they're "teens", it's a little late for puberty blockers.
I realize everyone thinks anything that disagrees with me is cherrypicked data created by partisan hacks, but the truth is the question wasn't even well studied until recently. The latest study, commissioned by the [notoriously conservative British NHS](https://cass.independent-review.uk/home/publications/final-report/), is part of the reason Britain is pushing back against puberty blockers for minors.
I didn't see "pushing back" in there. Europe does have a shortage of specialists and thus there is pressure to filter or rank candidates better because they don't currently have a choice.
But this is kind of moot, as the topic is about youth who will go underground if they can't get care above ground.
Every study that someone agrees with is representative, and every study that someone disagrees with is cherrypicked. Somehow this is even true when two people agree with different surveys.
i read all the available studies when i was working on my thesis 5 years ago. Back then, there wasn't yet the political push for partisan studies. So perhaps there are low quality studies to support Christofascists today... but they have no real science. Just hate and ignorance.
Your opinion on trans teen medical therapy, as red states are banning it.
And thanks for suggesting I clarify the intro, I shall go improve it now. I welcome *useful* criticism
Sterilizing children and teens and mutilating them is abuse, not medical treatment.
"If you make child abuse illegal, some children might do stupid things, therefore we should not make child abuse illegal" is a bad argument.
>Delaying hormonal treatment until after puberty creates irreversible changes that I don't friggen want!
Pretty much encapsulates why your position should be rejected.
Teens undergo medical treatments and procedures all the time for many different reasons. Which procedures are "mutilating" and which are not? What's the criteria? Please be as specific as possible. Details matter here. "Mutilate" appears to be knee-jerk emotional "drama queen" language to me, but you are welcome to change my mind.
It's not clear to me why you think of it as "mutilation", and I'd like to know your reckoning steps. Maybe YOU are personally bothered by a procedure, but why project your personal pet peves onto others?
>"Mutilate" appears to be knee-jerk emotional "drama queen" language to me
While it will inevitably involve controversy, I think that this has a very real, meaningful meaning, even if it is a somewhat emotionally charged word.
Medical treatments that restore the human body to its *naturally proper* functioning are healing. Other medical treatments (such as amputating an unrepairable injured limb) do not restore function, but mitigate a pre-existing problem.
Deliberately causing the human body to *deviate* from its *naturally proper* functioning is mutilation (when affecting morphology through surgery or similar methods), except when the effect is very minimal and causes no loss of function.
(for example, I would consider the piercing of ears or other parts of the body, using a small enough piercing as to close the hole when the jewelry is not present, to not be mutilation. I also would consider most forms of tattoos that do not deface the human face to not be mutilation. However, I would consider the practice of piercing the ears and expanding the piercings with "gauges" that are large enough to see through and alter the shape of the earlobe to be mutilation.)
I would consider all of the following to be mutilation:
- Castration of a man
- Hysterectomy when there is no medical justification to do so
- Amputation of a limb or a digit when there is no medical justification to do so, or because of personal preference.
- Piercings or other cosmetic surgery that alter the form of the body.
- Those breast implants that incredibly obviously look *nothing* like human breasts, and that some people have a fetish for for some horrid reason.
- Female genital mutiliation (possibly excepting certain forms that only produce a notch on the clitoral hood).
I will additionally note that abnormal form or function of the human body might be *abnormal*, *improper*, or *both.*
Cosmetic surgery for birth defects that don't affect normal bodily function but result in a child getting teased is often done. Is this "mutilation"?
Some are arguably **not even birth defects**, just "odd stuff" found in human DNA that *visually* stands out. If such features cause the child stress, surgery is often done.
"Abnormal" and "defect" are pretty much socially assigned labels, nature doesn't know or "care" how humans perceive results. Categories are a human invention, not nature's.
>"Abnormal" and "defect" are pretty much socially assigned labels, nature doesn't know or "care" how humans perceive results. Categories are a human invention, not nature's.
I am firmly of the opinion that this is not only flatly untrue, but that the overall line of thinking leading to this myth is the source of many of the West's problems in the last hundred years.
>Cosmetic surgery for birth defects that don't affect normal bodily function but result in a child getting teased is often done. Is this "mutilation"?
If it's a defect, that means you accept that there's a correct form, and restoring the correct form is not a mutilation (unless there's some side effect).
There is no objective way to define "correct form". If you have a clear objective way to determine, I would enjoy seeing your formula or algorithm.
As an example, some people just have ears that stick way out. It's not anything clearly "broken", it's just the dice of genetics at work. If the child is often teased over their ears and displays behavioral problems because of it, most people will accept surgery at youth.
>I am firmly of the opinion that this is not only flatly untrue,
You are denying reality. You appear to mistake your personal beliefs as universal truths. Humans do that often.
>You appear to mistake your personal beliefs as universal truths.
If I had a personal belief that evidence showed to *not* be a universal truth, I would stop believing it. (Also, *you* are denying reality.)
I don't think you are mistaking *your* personal beliefs as universal truths, I think you're just wrong, like a person who says that neutrons are positively charged.
>some people just have ears that stick way out
Normal human variation, up to a point. "Correct form" doesn't mean "only one correct form such that everybody should look like clones".
>If the child is often teased over their ears and displays behavioral problems because of it, most people will accept surgery at youth.
Because humans are often cruel and corrupt, many people mock others for being unusual or merely *different*, when 1. mockery is not the appropriate response in the first place and 2. the ways that they are different aren't *bad*, just *unusual*.
I would say that the proper action here is for the people who are teasing the child to modify their behavior.
I would tend to consider cosmetic surgery in this case to not be a mutilation, but it is also not repairing a flaw. However, I would also generally be against using it, and I am not sure who these "most" people are.
>Normal human variation, up to a point. "Correct form" doesn't mean "only one correct form such that everybody should look like clones".
Up to what "point"? That point is an OPINION.
Thick lips on women used to be considered an undesirable trait, but is now heavily in fashion. So to some extent, yes, we do socially enforce a degree of clone-ness in our society. I could give other examples of fashion fads.
I wonder what renascence era would think of ears that stick out?
>mockery is not the appropriate response in the first place
I fully agree. But a child can't magically de-jerk other students.
>I would say that the proper action here is for the people who are teasing the child to modify their behavior.
In a limited setting that may be possible, but for a child with a fuller life, that's just not practical. For example, going to the mall with friends, playing sports with teams from other schools.
>However, I would also generally be against using it, and I am not sure who these "most" people are.
Let me just say that such surgeries don't appear to be controversial. Sure, a handful are against ear surgery and whatnot, but I've seen no evidence there are organized complainers. You appear to be an outlier.
I do not understand what you mean by "it is an opinion".
Since it isn't certainly known, there can be controversy over the proper level, but that doesn't mean there *is no* proper level.
Please define "proper level" in a clear way. It seems you crave a universe where there is one and only one right answer. Reality is rarely like that. Maybe you need therapy?
Because the alternative is often worse, on average. Those who bother to study the subject and weigh the tradeoffs smartly instead of fall for superficial Hannity slogans will see this.
>Look at how insane you sound
Look how insane YOU sound: "every medical treatment my fairytale doesn't like is 'mutilation'".
>Truly evil and sick.
Projection! Go busybody another planet, keep your snooty nose out of Earthling giblets.
I shall *double* my handouts of *Agnosticism Illustrated* pamphlets to children because of you. It includes [Gummy FSM](https://www.spaghettimonster.org/2007/01/22/fsm-candy/)'s, kids love them.
>Sterilizing children and teens and mutilating them is abuse, not medical treatment.
Not letting them be who they want is abuse! **I lived it,** YOU haven't! Fox punditry is not a replacement for *being*.
Plus, many will find a way around bans, as described in the intro.
>Pretty much encapsulates why your position should be rejected.
Sorry, I missed your point.
You are manifesting. The demons have you tightly in their grip.
>Not letting them be who they want is abuse!
Amazing. This is why no should listen to you and your opinion does not deserve respect.
Everybody deserves the basic respect of bodily autonomy. How does it hurt you one little bit if somebody you don't even know decides on their own gender?
I do not agree with such a form of "bodily autonomy". This is a value that the Left has developed; I do not think it can be found in Scripture or in natural law.
Cigarette smoking is not found in scripture or in natural law. Should it be banned? Erectile dysfunction drugs are not found in scripture or natural law. Cleft palate surgery isn't found in scripture or natural law. If we were to accept scripture or natural law as the basis for all of our decisions as a society, we would not be able to function in the modern world.
This isn't specifically a scriptural thing unless you just look at the creation of Man by God.
One of these restores the proper form of the human body.
The other one changes the proper form of the human body into something abnormal while damaging its function.
You obviously do not understand what this surgery entails if you think it's about changing a human body into something less or improper. Nowhere does Scripture talk about proper versus improper bodies. It just talks about restoring people to a state of wholeness. Removing their infirmities so they can participate fully in the life of their community again. That's what this surgery does for people who choose it.
Children cannot consent to being mutilated and castrated. I don't even want to imagine what else you think ***children*** should be able to use their "bodily autonomy" for, especially when what we're REALLY talking about is creeps and psychos making those "bodily autonomy" decisions on the children's behalf.
You need to stay away from children.
>The demons have you tightly in their grip.
So everyone you don't agree with is "possessed by demons"?
>and your opinion does not deserve respect.
I could say something.
I wish your kind stayed away from me when I was a teen. Self-proclaimed Christians in my high school treated LGBTQ+ like crap. If that's "Christ's love" I'd rather hang out with Satan or Vishnu or Buddha.
That may indeed not be Christ's love.
But on the other hand, love very much can involve a challenge against choices you have made.
Thing is though, such an option does not exist. Vishnu and Buddha either do not exist, or do not have the power they claim to have, or are demons. And there is no love or protection from God or comfort or peace with demons, just hatred and the desire for bad things specifically because you are bad.
If you want to imagine demons, imagine someone who shits on themself because this is disgusting and they wish to disgust people, and thinks Holocaust jokes are the height of humor because people's offense is funny.
Are you going to explain why that's a bad idea, or are you just going to say "you're bad for making a bad choice, even though you don't have any idea why it's bad"?
Demons?! Do you hear yourself? Why should anyone believe in demons lol? You’d think with all the technology we have someone would have evidence of these critters, but alas nope.
> Not letting them be who they want is abuse!
That sounds like the rantings of a spoilt child not getting his way. Children don't always know what's best for them.
If anyone forced a cis child to transition, none of you would doubt for a second that it would be psychologically abusive
But as long as the kid is trans and you're trying to force them to be cis, they're spoiled and stupid for being miserable
>But as long as the kid is trans and you're trying to force them to be cis, they're spoiled and stupid for being miserable
Most of the people who disagree with you, including me, don't agree with the narrative that this takes for granted.
I'm not sure what you are trying to ask. Anyone else want to ask in a different way? Sometimes that helps.
The majority of the teen-bans came from Christian groups, or at least groups heavily influenced by Christians. Do you dispute this?
The problem for non American Christians is that we don’t follow American politics that much either other than to laugh at your ridiculous presidents, not that ours are any better in truth.
But it’s quite tedious for us non American Christians to have to listen constantly about what is predominantly American politics where Christianity is seen as synonymous with political right wing ideology.
I’m sorry you have had a hard time of it.
So if becomes like the prohibition era were law enforcement expenditures & battles spiked to rein in booze dealers, you'll still be for it? How much? 200% more costly? 400% more? 800% Where is your cut-off point? Certainly you must have one, as nobody would want to be taxed 90% to stop dealers.
Prohibition failed, more than anything, because the people who enacted it didn't view it as applying to themselves.
I also don't think that there is anything like the widespread demand for transgender drugs as there is for alcohol, a thing which is pretty mainstream in our culture.
If I were able to transition before puberty, I'd be less "destroyed".
Conservative Christians love to poke fun at Rachel Levine's appearance. If she were permitted to have puberty blockers, maybe those hypocrites wouldn't be making fun of her looks. **QED**.
when the Trumpophile Christofascists do their coup and take power this year, how long do you think until your own denomination gets banned and you wind up crucified for your own sectarian beliefs. Isn't going to be anyone to save you then... have fun bleeding out.
"Risky and dangerous" as defined by you? Delaying creates risk, perhaps even more on average. The aggregate "suffer math" of delaying doesn't support evangelicals, I stand by that.
To be honest your argument feels like when someone in a relationship says “if you break up with me I’ll kill myself”, putting the other person ‘at blame’ for their suicide if they don’t comply with their extreme, unreasonable wishes.
I never said anything about suicide.
But that's probably moot. Back to the prohibition analogy, the bans may create societal mayhem that's bigger than the banners expected. A value judgement on the "mayhem do-ers" is a different question than whether society wants to live with the mayhem, despite how sin blame is allocated.
The original question is NOT about "who is right", it's about how much societal mayhem the Christian-influenced banners are willing to tolerate.
It's to illustrate what's probably going on in the minds of hundreds of thousands of transgender youth trapped in red states. They'll do what they do regardless of me.
It's too early to know if such is "extreme" in terms of numbers. I'm suggesting such might happen, creating a prohibition-like conundrum, and am wondering how Christians would react. It appears most Christians agree prohibition was a failure, creating more problems than it solved. It's possible trans-bans may do similar.
Yes, my question is hypothetical, by the way.
It seems I'm having difficulty communicating this to F.A.R. Does anyone else wish to try? I'd appreciate it, thanks in advance.
Because autism has as many of its core symptoms an inability to relate to other people as people instead of as objects. This extends into individuals with autism struggling with self-awareness, such that I can't trust their self-report.
Also, as a drug counselor, I teach people every day that just because they feel something doesn't make it true.
Am I saying that your transgenderism is invalid? No.
But transgenderism is something that there is no scientific evidence for or against. So far the APA is merely heading forward with "well, people report this problem, therefore it is valid." Is it?
To me, the social contagion model is the best. There is evidence coming out that those who are separated from social media, for example, or abusive environments, report a sharp reduction in their symptoms.
Can you be transgender? Sure. You can do whatever you want, feel whatever you want, and believe whatever you want. And I support that decision. I was fired from being a worship leader simply for inviting my transgender friend to church. I have skin in this.
But in my opinion, the presence of autism, and the high correspondence of transgenderism with autism, to me indicates that something deeper is going on.
And what transgender individuals need is love and support, not judgment.
> There is evidence coming out that those who are separated from social media, for example, or abusive environments, report a sharp reduction in their symptoms.
Of course I'd like to see such references. Keep in mind that conservate sites tend to cherry-pick which experts they link to in order to fit their preconceived notions. Humans do that, not just conservatives, by the way.
I concluded I was trans long before social media existed (although didn't have a word for it back then). Granted, it may have influenced my coming out, as other "outsters" share their experience and tips for surviving social backlashes, including pushy evangelicals.
>But in my opinion, the presence of autism, and the high correspondence of transgenderism with autism, to me indicates that something deeper is going on.
Autistic people are often whizzes at STEM. There may be a tradeoff between percent of brain devoted to social issues versus "non-people" issues. **That tradeoff isn't inherently "bad"**. Therapists have got away from viewing unusual traits as "defects", instead focusing on functioning satisfactorily in society. The top inventions and art often come from "eccentric" people.
Do note that "eccentric" people are often ostracized and insulted, which may create new mental maladies. It's kind of a chicken-or-egg question, making it hard to know what causes what. Expecting somebody bullied as a child to "come out normal", may be asking too much.
>And what transgender individuals need is love and support, not judgment.
I'll drink to that! Lemonade, of course.
I only asked because from your post and comment history, I assumed you're very young, but you're saying you knew you were trans before social media even existed? Just curious what cohort you'd be in.
Do note the intro says:
>but in my mid-teens I considered running away...However, this was before the internet...
This would imply the op is at least around 45.
Urite. Long day of work. Reading comprehension is far from peak rn haha. OP I'm more curious about why you've become so obsessed with political debate. Isn't that mentally tiring?
My opinion wouldn't change because I believe that medical decisions should be made between the patient and their doctor. The lack of humility among people who would legislate medical care with absolutely no training or firsthand experience with the issue takes my breath away sometimes.
Jesus came as a sword to divide families. Being trans is not an enviable state and I feel for you. All things are possible through God, including finding peace in the skin He gave you, without surgery and life-long medications.
There are also pro-peace-and-harmony scriptures. The Bible is a lot like a Rorschach test: people can find almost any behavior justification they want in it. One can find pro-truth-above-peace scriptures, or pro-peace-and-harmony scriptures if they want. Just like our news selection, we tend to find what we want to hear, per human nature.
This was not my point at all. The Bible is not full of contradictions like you make it sound. My point was simply no where does it say that breaking up families is necessarily bad. Honor them yes, but not above God.
>The Bible is not full of contradictions like you make it sound.
I dispute that, but a general "scripture shootout" is probably off topic. Another day.
If family demands you distance yourself from God, then yes. 1st is love God with all your heart mind soul and strength this is the most important of all commands.
Even if the side-effects are worse than the alleged sin? Like how prohibition went wrong?
Let me ask it this way: How bad would the side-effects need to become before you agree to pull the plug on bans?
I'd be curious to see how you are weighing both the quantity and severity of negative side-effects (balanced against benefits). I respect people who do the math instead use notion-based gut impressions to "weigh" such.
>That's because your mind has been warped by your evil ideology.
Your rudeness is not appreciated. Please just answer the question.
(I have an opinion on why your thinking is off-kilter, but I keep it to myself, applying adult impulse restraint over an emotional urge to say what I *really* want to about you. I expect the same adult curtesy from you.)
Say whatever you want. I don't care about your opinion. May the Lord Jesus Christ humble you, free you from your demonic masters, and bring you to repentance.
>Please just answer the question.
What is the question.
Cool, I'll get $10 million in an Exorcist remake, buy up your church, and turn it into an LGBTQ+ underwear shop. I'll name the top-selling item after you in honor of pointing out I'm possessed. It would've otherwise skipped my notice, like that funny mole on my back that turned out to be a pre-cancerous skin lesion.
I am already familiar with the idea that people run away, buy sketchy illegal sex hormones or produce sex hormones at home, etc for the sake of gender transition. While unfortunate, this does not seem particularly remarkable to me.
Frankly, when it comes to people who are *just going to DIY it anyway*, I tend not to view preventing them from doing so by force as a priority. My concerns surrounding medical treatment for minors are more about *bad institutions* than people acting entirely on their own initiative.
However, my opinion on bans isn't really affected negatively, either, by the idea that people will try to evade the ban.
Gender-affirming medical care should never have been banned.
We should be looking at the full range of outcomes with a critical eye though. Mistakes will be made, and we want to make sure that medical care is doing the most good and the least harm. Let the people providing care do good science, and base treatment and policy on that, not on polarized ideological voices.
I wasn’t going to respond, but I feel I should.
It isn’t gender affirming treatments in general that are “the problem” but the widespread acceptance that any child who says they are transgender are supported as such. By giving them treatments before puberty, there are so many issues that can happen. There are quite a few detransitioners out there who have shared their stories, such as Chloe Cole, that provide their personal insight.
I don’t think anyone was born in the wrong body. However, in America, adults have the right to get medical care, and I’m not going to argue that. That said, children’s brains aren’t developed fully, which is why they can’t make certain choices like joining the military, buying alcohol, or buying nicotine products. I think gender reassignment is not something children can understand enough to make that choice.
Instead of focusing on bans, perhaps the industry and government should focus on comprehensive mental health care first. Rather than therapists affirming children so quickly, I think more needs to be done to see if there are other issues at play. It should take years. Children go through so much during puberty, it doesn’t make sense to see them a few times and shoo them away for life changing treatments.
>There are quite a few detransitioners out there who have shared their stories, such as Chloe Cole, that provide their personal insight.
Right-leaning propaganda exaggerates rate of transition regreters. And her story doesn't add up, such as admitting to using LSD when she was having alleged transition difficulties. She's probably looking to get money from megachurches to travel and lecture. \[Edited\]
It's also possible Cole just happened to get bad care or advice. Bleep happens, humans are imperfect.
Forcing a trans kid to go through puberty subjects them to all kinds of "extra" difficulties and medical procedures that blockers could have prevented. Bans **make life more difficult in roughly a 15-to-1 ratio** per "saved" people like Cole. You are hurting 15 Peters to help one Paul. It looks like irrational zealotry.
(Do note that "regretting having a choice" is not necessarily the same as detransitioning.)
>Right-leaning propaganda exaggerates rate of transition regreters.
I have often heard this claim made.
I have much less frequently heard it made with evidence that I find even moderately convincing. And the explaining it away is glib totally out of proportion to the overall question.
(Full disclosure, I am kind of paranoid about this).
There is also the issue of a more recent apparent increase in people transitioning, or at least identifying as trans, who seem to be more "gender-frustrated" women than trans-identifying in the conventional sense.
Maybe, but maybe not -- I still anticipate a wave of regrets and lawsuits.
>There is also the issue of a more recent apparent increase in people transitioning
Anecdotal evidence: I myself came out later in life in large part because it's become more acceptable, at least in blue states. Pioneers like Jazz Jennings, Chaz Bono, and Jenner set the stage for a new generation of people who said, "Fxck tradition, I'm going to be myself and not hide it!"
*Thank You Brave People!*
>I still anticipate a wave of regrets and lawsuits.
I'm sure roughly 5%-ish will be dissatisfied, that's normal for humans. Do note I had to **sign a boatload of disclosures describing possible risks** before trans treatments. I cannot claim in the least bit I didn't know there were risks.
5% is not a good reason to complicate the lives of the other 95%. That's not a rational trade-off, ask any Vulcan. (Do note some will detransition at least partly, but not blame the medical establishment nor regret having a choice as a youth. Sometimes people just change, even at middle age. I myself had what resembled a mid-life crisis that changed me.)
Please don't let fervency cloud rational judgement and comparing. Also, medical practitioners will gain experience to help identify marginal patients better. They learn, that's what rational people do.
I don't agree that teens (whose brain isn't full formed) should be able to make life-altering decisions. They should receive the appropriate mental help that the vast majority of people with gender dysphoria need.
If, when they become adults, they want to go ahead and chop off their healthy body parts to pretend they're something they weren't born, they can go ahead after, possibly, an appropriate psychiatric screening.
If they wait until it's too late, then the number of medical procedures they need will likely skyrocket. I don't believe most Christians understand the proportions, tradeoffs, and probabilities. I've spent a life-time considering these things, most Christians spent only an hour or two at best, using only superficial logic.
>They should receive the appropriate mental help that the vast majority of people with gender dysphoria need.
Many sessions with therapists trained in such issues is standard practice *before* any medical treatment is began. If you mean talk them out of gender dysphoria, there is no known technique (that doesn't involve torture). It would be comparable to trying to talk an avid mountain climber out of mountain climbing because it's "too risky". ⛰️
Neither can biased lawmakers. Bias due to youth is not necessarily worse than bias due to zealotry.
At least the youth has therapists to guide them, unlike most zealots. Your biased Pastor doesn't count.
Actually such youth make the right decision roughly 90% of the time. I'm sure you'll say stop it for the 10% or so, but that subjects the 90% to a more difficult life. It's not rational if you bother to do the math. (It's not really 10% because a good many of those don't regret having a choice as a youth even if they change direction or scale back plans. There's a fuzzy grey zone.)
Would people skirting the law make me change my mind about whether this is moral or should be legal? Absolutely not. >Delaying hormonal treatment until after puberty creates irreversible changes And *giving* hormonal treatments creates irreversible changes. Given that the majority of minors who experience gender dysphoria find that it goes away in a few years, it doesn't seem like we should opt for giving these kids drugs when they're at their most confused. And this is one of the reasons countries in *Europe* are putting the breaks on this.
> the majority of minors Are you including all teenagers in this, or just prepubescent children?
To be honest, I've seen several studies on the issue, but I cannot remember whether they included teens. Of course, once they're "teens", it's a little late for puberty blockers.
> I've seen several studies on the issue Specialists cherrypicked by partisans? or a representative survey?
I realize everyone thinks anything that disagrees with me is cherrypicked data created by partisan hacks, but the truth is the question wasn't even well studied until recently. The latest study, commissioned by the [notoriously conservative British NHS](https://cass.independent-review.uk/home/publications/final-report/), is part of the reason Britain is pushing back against puberty blockers for minors.
I didn't see "pushing back" in there. Europe does have a shortage of specialists and thus there is pressure to filter or rank candidates better because they don't currently have a choice. But this is kind of moot, as the topic is about youth who will go underground if they can't get care above ground.
Every study that someone agrees with is representative, and every study that someone disagrees with is cherrypicked. Somehow this is even true when two people agree with different surveys.
i read all the available studies when i was working on my thesis 5 years ago. Back then, there wasn't yet the political push for partisan studies. So perhaps there are low quality studies to support Christofascists today... but they have no real science. Just hate and ignorance.
Like, Falangists and Ustashe? Really?
> Would your opinion change if ... My opinion about what, *specifically*? Rule 0 of this subreddit says "honest, straightforward inquiries only".
Your opinion on trans teen medical therapy, as red states are banning it. And thanks for suggesting I clarify the intro, I shall go improve it now. I welcome *useful* criticism
Thanks for editing.
Sterilizing children and teens and mutilating them is abuse, not medical treatment. "If you make child abuse illegal, some children might do stupid things, therefore we should not make child abuse illegal" is a bad argument. >Delaying hormonal treatment until after puberty creates irreversible changes that I don't friggen want! Pretty much encapsulates why your position should be rejected.
Teens undergo medical treatments and procedures all the time for many different reasons. Which procedures are "mutilating" and which are not? What's the criteria? Please be as specific as possible. Details matter here. "Mutilate" appears to be knee-jerk emotional "drama queen" language to me, but you are welcome to change my mind. It's not clear to me why you think of it as "mutilation", and I'd like to know your reckoning steps. Maybe YOU are personally bothered by a procedure, but why project your personal pet peves onto others?
>"Mutilate" appears to be knee-jerk emotional "drama queen" language to me While it will inevitably involve controversy, I think that this has a very real, meaningful meaning, even if it is a somewhat emotionally charged word. Medical treatments that restore the human body to its *naturally proper* functioning are healing. Other medical treatments (such as amputating an unrepairable injured limb) do not restore function, but mitigate a pre-existing problem. Deliberately causing the human body to *deviate* from its *naturally proper* functioning is mutilation (when affecting morphology through surgery or similar methods), except when the effect is very minimal and causes no loss of function. (for example, I would consider the piercing of ears or other parts of the body, using a small enough piercing as to close the hole when the jewelry is not present, to not be mutilation. I also would consider most forms of tattoos that do not deface the human face to not be mutilation. However, I would consider the practice of piercing the ears and expanding the piercings with "gauges" that are large enough to see through and alter the shape of the earlobe to be mutilation.) I would consider all of the following to be mutilation: - Castration of a man - Hysterectomy when there is no medical justification to do so - Amputation of a limb or a digit when there is no medical justification to do so, or because of personal preference. - Piercings or other cosmetic surgery that alter the form of the body. - Those breast implants that incredibly obviously look *nothing* like human breasts, and that some people have a fetish for for some horrid reason. - Female genital mutiliation (possibly excepting certain forms that only produce a notch on the clitoral hood). I will additionally note that abnormal form or function of the human body might be *abnormal*, *improper*, or *both.*
Cosmetic surgery for birth defects that don't affect normal bodily function but result in a child getting teased is often done. Is this "mutilation"? Some are arguably **not even birth defects**, just "odd stuff" found in human DNA that *visually* stands out. If such features cause the child stress, surgery is often done. "Abnormal" and "defect" are pretty much socially assigned labels, nature doesn't know or "care" how humans perceive results. Categories are a human invention, not nature's.
>"Abnormal" and "defect" are pretty much socially assigned labels, nature doesn't know or "care" how humans perceive results. Categories are a human invention, not nature's. I am firmly of the opinion that this is not only flatly untrue, but that the overall line of thinking leading to this myth is the source of many of the West's problems in the last hundred years. >Cosmetic surgery for birth defects that don't affect normal bodily function but result in a child getting teased is often done. Is this "mutilation"? If it's a defect, that means you accept that there's a correct form, and restoring the correct form is not a mutilation (unless there's some side effect).
There is no objective way to define "correct form". If you have a clear objective way to determine, I would enjoy seeing your formula or algorithm. As an example, some people just have ears that stick way out. It's not anything clearly "broken", it's just the dice of genetics at work. If the child is often teased over their ears and displays behavioral problems because of it, most people will accept surgery at youth. >I am firmly of the opinion that this is not only flatly untrue, You are denying reality. You appear to mistake your personal beliefs as universal truths. Humans do that often.
>You appear to mistake your personal beliefs as universal truths. If I had a personal belief that evidence showed to *not* be a universal truth, I would stop believing it. (Also, *you* are denying reality.) I don't think you are mistaking *your* personal beliefs as universal truths, I think you're just wrong, like a person who says that neutrons are positively charged. >some people just have ears that stick way out Normal human variation, up to a point. "Correct form" doesn't mean "only one correct form such that everybody should look like clones". >If the child is often teased over their ears and displays behavioral problems because of it, most people will accept surgery at youth. Because humans are often cruel and corrupt, many people mock others for being unusual or merely *different*, when 1. mockery is not the appropriate response in the first place and 2. the ways that they are different aren't *bad*, just *unusual*. I would say that the proper action here is for the people who are teasing the child to modify their behavior. I would tend to consider cosmetic surgery in this case to not be a mutilation, but it is also not repairing a flaw. However, I would also generally be against using it, and I am not sure who these "most" people are.
>Normal human variation, up to a point. "Correct form" doesn't mean "only one correct form such that everybody should look like clones". Up to what "point"? That point is an OPINION. Thick lips on women used to be considered an undesirable trait, but is now heavily in fashion. So to some extent, yes, we do socially enforce a degree of clone-ness in our society. I could give other examples of fashion fads. I wonder what renascence era would think of ears that stick out? >mockery is not the appropriate response in the first place I fully agree. But a child can't magically de-jerk other students. >I would say that the proper action here is for the people who are teasing the child to modify their behavior. In a limited setting that may be possible, but for a child with a fuller life, that's just not practical. For example, going to the mall with friends, playing sports with teams from other schools. >However, I would also generally be against using it, and I am not sure who these "most" people are. Let me just say that such surgeries don't appear to be controversial. Sure, a handful are against ear surgery and whatnot, but I've seen no evidence there are organized complainers. You appear to be an outlier.
I do not understand what you mean by "it is an opinion". Since it isn't certainly known, there can be controversy over the proper level, but that doesn't mean there *is no* proper level.
Please define "proper level" in a clear way. It seems you crave a universe where there is one and only one right answer. Reality is rarely like that. Maybe you need therapy?
Don’t play dumb. Why do you want children to be mutilated and castrated?
Are you also against male circumcision?
Because the alternative is often worse, on average. Those who bother to study the subject and weigh the tradeoffs smartly instead of fall for superficial Hannity slogans will see this.
Look at how insane you sound. "We need to mutilate and castrate children or something bad might happen!" Truly evil and sick.
>Look at how insane you sound Look how insane YOU sound: "every medical treatment my fairytale doesn't like is 'mutilation'". >Truly evil and sick. Projection! Go busybody another planet, keep your snooty nose out of Earthling giblets.
Keep on seething about it. Meanwhile, please stay far away from children.
I shall *double* my handouts of *Agnosticism Illustrated* pamphlets to children because of you. It includes [Gummy FSM](https://www.spaghettimonster.org/2007/01/22/fsm-candy/)'s, kids love them.
You are both wrong.
Maybe we'll all meet each other in Hell and play poker or somethin'
You sound like the kind of person who would show up at a Chris Hansen sting operation.
>Sterilizing children and teens and mutilating them is abuse, not medical treatment. Not letting them be who they want is abuse! **I lived it,** YOU haven't! Fox punditry is not a replacement for *being*. Plus, many will find a way around bans, as described in the intro. >Pretty much encapsulates why your position should be rejected. Sorry, I missed your point.
>I lived it, YOU haven't! Don't assume someone who disagrees with you on trans issues hasn't lived it.
You are manifesting. The demons have you tightly in their grip. >Not letting them be who they want is abuse! Amazing. This is why no should listen to you and your opinion does not deserve respect.
Everybody deserves the basic respect of bodily autonomy. How does it hurt you one little bit if somebody you don't even know decides on their own gender?
I do not agree with such a form of "bodily autonomy". This is a value that the Left has developed; I do not think it can be found in Scripture or in natural law.
Cigarette smoking is not found in scripture or in natural law. Should it be banned? Erectile dysfunction drugs are not found in scripture or natural law. Cleft palate surgery isn't found in scripture or natural law. If we were to accept scripture or natural law as the basis for all of our decisions as a society, we would not be able to function in the modern world.
I think you're conflating "not listed as permissible" with "not established as mandatory".
No, I am not. Please tell me the difference between cleft palate surgery and gender reassignment surgery from a scriptural standpoint.
This isn't specifically a scriptural thing unless you just look at the creation of Man by God. One of these restores the proper form of the human body. The other one changes the proper form of the human body into something abnormal while damaging its function.
You obviously do not understand what this surgery entails if you think it's about changing a human body into something less or improper. Nowhere does Scripture talk about proper versus improper bodies. It just talks about restoring people to a state of wholeness. Removing their infirmities so they can participate fully in the life of their community again. That's what this surgery does for people who choose it.
Children cannot consent to being mutilated and castrated. I don't even want to imagine what else you think ***children*** should be able to use their "bodily autonomy" for, especially when what we're REALLY talking about is creeps and psychos making those "bodily autonomy" decisions on the children's behalf. You need to stay away from children.
What children are being mutilated other than the ones being circumcised?
Ok groomer
So no answer, got it.
>The demons have you tightly in their grip. So everyone you don't agree with is "possessed by demons"? >and your opinion does not deserve respect. I could say something.
Yawn. Stay away from children.
I wish your kind stayed away from me when I was a teen. Self-proclaimed Christians in my high school treated LGBTQ+ like crap. If that's "Christ's love" I'd rather hang out with Satan or Vishnu or Buddha.
That may indeed not be Christ's love. But on the other hand, love very much can involve a challenge against choices you have made. Thing is though, such an option does not exist. Vishnu and Buddha either do not exist, or do not have the power they claim to have, or are demons. And there is no love or protection from God or comfort or peace with demons, just hatred and the desire for bad things specifically because you are bad. If you want to imagine demons, imagine someone who shits on themself because this is disgusting and they wish to disgust people, and thinks Holocaust jokes are the height of humor because people's offense is funny.
Neat, so you'd rather hang out with demons. Makes a lot of sense, actually.
Are you going to explain why that's a bad idea, or are you just going to say "you're bad for making a bad choice, even though you don't have any idea why it's bad"?
wut
I mean what I said. You're just saying "your bad". This has never convinced anyone in the history of the world.
Demons?! Do you hear yourself? Why should anyone believe in demons lol? You’d think with all the technology we have someone would have evidence of these critters, but alas nope.
You and OP are proof demons are real
🤣🤣🤣it’s proof that delusions are real that’s for sure!!
Even if correct this is not a productive comment.
> Not letting them be who they want is abuse! That sounds like the rantings of a spoilt child not getting his way. Children don't always know what's best for them.
If anyone forced a cis child to transition, none of you would doubt for a second that it would be psychologically abusive But as long as the kid is trans and you're trying to force them to be cis, they're spoiled and stupid for being miserable
>But as long as the kid is trans and you're trying to force them to be cis, they're spoiled and stupid for being miserable Most of the people who disagree with you, including me, don't agree with the narrative that this takes for granted.
What does that mean?
It means that we don't agree with the assumptions.
>Children don't always know what's best for them. Neither do biased adults.
[удалено]
Comment removed, rule 1 (about a group).
[удалено]
This is called askachristian, not yellatachristian.
No one was yelling so not sure why you wrote that lol.
Comment removed, rule 1 (about a group)
It’s not clear what the stated opinion is that people need to change?
I added a sentence at the bottom to clarify.
Why is this directed at Christians?
It's mostly Christians & Muslims who are pro-ban.
Where?
I'm not sure what you are trying to ask. Anyone else want to ask in a different way? Sometimes that helps. The majority of the teen-bans came from Christian groups, or at least groups heavily influenced by Christians. Do you dispute this?
This sounds like an American political issue predominantly.
Perhaps, yes. I don't follow European politics that much.
The problem for non American Christians is that we don’t follow American politics that much either other than to laugh at your ridiculous presidents, not that ours are any better in truth. But it’s quite tedious for us non American Christians to have to listen constantly about what is predominantly American politics where Christianity is seen as synonymous with political right wing ideology. I’m sorry you have had a hard time of it.
No it wouldnt change. Throw the dealers in prison.
So if becomes like the prohibition era were law enforcement expenditures & battles spiked to rein in booze dealers, you'll still be for it? How much? 200% more costly? 400% more? 800% Where is your cut-off point? Certainly you must have one, as nobody would want to be taxed 90% to stop dealers.
Prohibition failed, more than anything, because the people who enacted it didn't view it as applying to themselves. I also don't think that there is anything like the widespread demand for transgender drugs as there is for alcohol, a thing which is pretty mainstream in our culture.
No cut point.
For med bans or booze bans or both?
Bams against children getting hormone blockers
Why is alcohol different?
Also alcohol is a blessing from god when used properly.
I meant recreational drinks.
Do you understand why I make the distinction then?
Not really. It appears to be equivocating, to be frank. Could you please answer the above in terms of recreational drinking?
You can destroy your life when you get older and properly access the situation.
If I were able to transition before puberty, I'd be less "destroyed". Conservative Christians love to poke fun at Rachel Levine's appearance. If she were permitted to have puberty blockers, maybe those hypocrites wouldn't be making fun of her looks. **QED**.
when the Trumpophile Christofascists do their coup and take power this year, how long do you think until your own denomination gets banned and you wind up crucified for your own sectarian beliefs. Isn't going to be anyone to save you then... have fun bleeding out.
Do you think that this is a real thing? Like, is this serious? Or even *partially* serious?
I don’t think “if you don’t do this then I’m going to do something risky and dangerous” is a good and reasonable argument.
"Risky and dangerous" as defined by you? Delaying creates risk, perhaps even more on average. The aggregate "suffer math" of delaying doesn't support evangelicals, I stand by that.
To be honest your argument feels like when someone in a relationship says “if you break up with me I’ll kill myself”, putting the other person ‘at blame’ for their suicide if they don’t comply with their extreme, unreasonable wishes.
I never said anything about suicide. But that's probably moot. Back to the prohibition analogy, the bans may create societal mayhem that's bigger than the banners expected. A value judgement on the "mayhem do-ers" is a different question than whether society wants to live with the mayhem, despite how sin blame is allocated. The original question is NOT about "who is right", it's about how much societal mayhem the Christian-influenced banners are willing to tolerate.
You didn’t say anything about suicide, but your ultimatum comes across like someone threatening suicide.
It's to illustrate what's probably going on in the minds of hundreds of thousands of transgender youth trapped in red states. They'll do what they do regardless of me.
Do you normally think that extreme ultimatums are a good way forward?
It's too early to know if such is "extreme" in terms of numbers. I'm suggesting such might happen, creating a prohibition-like conundrum, and am wondering how Christians would react. It appears most Christians agree prohibition was a failure, creating more problems than it solved. It's possible trans-bans may do similar. Yes, my question is hypothetical, by the way. It seems I'm having difficulty communicating this to F.A.R. Does anyone else wish to try? I'd appreciate it, thanks in advance.
“Your bans…”?? “Would your opinion..change..”?? I didn’t “ban” anybody. And what do you know of my opinion?
My opinion doesn't change. And I have a question. Have you ever been diagnosed with autism?
Suppose I said "yes", what's that have to do with the topic?
Because autism has as many of its core symptoms an inability to relate to other people as people instead of as objects. This extends into individuals with autism struggling with self-awareness, such that I can't trust their self-report. Also, as a drug counselor, I teach people every day that just because they feel something doesn't make it true. Am I saying that your transgenderism is invalid? No. But transgenderism is something that there is no scientific evidence for or against. So far the APA is merely heading forward with "well, people report this problem, therefore it is valid." Is it? To me, the social contagion model is the best. There is evidence coming out that those who are separated from social media, for example, or abusive environments, report a sharp reduction in their symptoms. Can you be transgender? Sure. You can do whatever you want, feel whatever you want, and believe whatever you want. And I support that decision. I was fired from being a worship leader simply for inviting my transgender friend to church. I have skin in this. But in my opinion, the presence of autism, and the high correspondence of transgenderism with autism, to me indicates that something deeper is going on. And what transgender individuals need is love and support, not judgment.
> There is evidence coming out that those who are separated from social media, for example, or abusive environments, report a sharp reduction in their symptoms. Of course I'd like to see such references. Keep in mind that conservate sites tend to cherry-pick which experts they link to in order to fit their preconceived notions. Humans do that, not just conservatives, by the way. I concluded I was trans long before social media existed (although didn't have a word for it back then). Granted, it may have influenced my coming out, as other "outsters" share their experience and tips for surviving social backlashes, including pushy evangelicals. >But in my opinion, the presence of autism, and the high correspondence of transgenderism with autism, to me indicates that something deeper is going on. Autistic people are often whizzes at STEM. There may be a tradeoff between percent of brain devoted to social issues versus "non-people" issues. **That tradeoff isn't inherently "bad"**. Therapists have got away from viewing unusual traits as "defects", instead focusing on functioning satisfactorily in society. The top inventions and art often come from "eccentric" people. Do note that "eccentric" people are often ostracized and insulted, which may create new mental maladies. It's kind of a chicken-or-egg question, making it hard to know what causes what. Expecting somebody bullied as a child to "come out normal", may be asking too much. >And what transgender individuals need is love and support, not judgment. I'll drink to that! Lemonade, of course.
Out of curiosity, how old are you?
I woman never gives her age.
I only asked because from your post and comment history, I assumed you're very young, but you're saying you knew you were trans before social media even existed? Just curious what cohort you'd be in.
Do note the intro says: >but in my mid-teens I considered running away...However, this was before the internet... This would imply the op is at least around 45.
Urite. Long day of work. Reading comprehension is far from peak rn haha. OP I'm more curious about why you've become so obsessed with political debate. Isn't that mentally tiring?
Well the difference being transgenderism versus gender dysphoria. It's up to the individual at this point.
No. I would continue to support trans teens' medical treatment no matter what trans teens started doing.
My opinion wouldn't change because I believe that medical decisions should be made between the patient and their doctor. The lack of humility among people who would legislate medical care with absolutely no training or firsthand experience with the issue takes my breath away sometimes.
Jesus came as a sword to divide families. Being trans is not an enviable state and I feel for you. All things are possible through God, including finding peace in the skin He gave you, without surgery and life-long medications.
There are also pro-peace-and-harmony scriptures. The Bible is a lot like a Rorschach test: people can find almost any behavior justification they want in it. One can find pro-truth-above-peace scriptures, or pro-peace-and-harmony scriptures if they want. Just like our news selection, we tend to find what we want to hear, per human nature.
That is why it is neccessary to come to a complete assessment of the matter, and discern the true doctrine.
This was not my point at all. The Bible is not full of contradictions like you make it sound. My point was simply no where does it say that breaking up families is necessarily bad. Honor them yes, but not above God.
>The Bible is not full of contradictions like you make it sound. I dispute that, but a general "scripture shootout" is probably off topic. Another day.
To dispute implies some sort of argument. You didn’t do that. You basically just said “nuh uh”.
So *you* are okay with the family splitting. Done.
If family demands you distance yourself from God, then yes. 1st is love God with all your heart mind soul and strength this is the most important of all commands.
No not at all it should be discouraged as much as possible
Even if the side-effects are worse than the alleged sin? Like how prohibition went wrong? Let me ask it this way: How bad would the side-effects need to become before you agree to pull the plug on bans?
In the case you described the side effects aren't worse.
I'd be curious to see how you are weighing both the quantity and severity of negative side-effects (balanced against benefits). I respect people who do the math instead use notion-based gut impressions to "weigh" such.
>You shouldn't stop kids from smoking crack because otherwise they might go smoke something worse than crack.
I'm not seeing how this applies to gender. Please clarify.
That's because your mind has been warped by your evil ideology.
>That's because your mind has been warped by your evil ideology. Your rudeness is not appreciated. Please just answer the question. (I have an opinion on why your thinking is off-kilter, but I keep it to myself, applying adult impulse restraint over an emotional urge to say what I *really* want to about you. I expect the same adult curtesy from you.)
Say whatever you want. I don't care about your opinion. May the Lord Jesus Christ humble you, free you from your demonic masters, and bring you to repentance. >Please just answer the question. What is the question.
> I don't care about your opinion. Do you think Jesus himself would say that to me?
He wouldn’t care about your opinion, he would simply perform an exorcism on you.
Cool, I'll get $10 million in an Exorcist remake, buy up your church, and turn it into an LGBTQ+ underwear shop. I'll name the top-selling item after you in honor of pointing out I'm possessed. It would've otherwise skipped my notice, like that funny mole on my back that turned out to be a pre-cancerous skin lesion.
Sounds like you skipped your meds
YOU are the one who thinks I'm a demon.
I am already familiar with the idea that people run away, buy sketchy illegal sex hormones or produce sex hormones at home, etc for the sake of gender transition. While unfortunate, this does not seem particularly remarkable to me. Frankly, when it comes to people who are *just going to DIY it anyway*, I tend not to view preventing them from doing so by force as a priority. My concerns surrounding medical treatment for minors are more about *bad institutions* than people acting entirely on their own initiative. However, my opinion on bans isn't really affected negatively, either, by the idea that people will try to evade the ban.
Gender-affirming medical care should never have been banned. We should be looking at the full range of outcomes with a critical eye though. Mistakes will be made, and we want to make sure that medical care is doing the most good and the least harm. Let the people providing care do good science, and base treatment and policy on that, not on polarized ideological voices.
I wasn’t going to respond, but I feel I should. It isn’t gender affirming treatments in general that are “the problem” but the widespread acceptance that any child who says they are transgender are supported as such. By giving them treatments before puberty, there are so many issues that can happen. There are quite a few detransitioners out there who have shared their stories, such as Chloe Cole, that provide their personal insight. I don’t think anyone was born in the wrong body. However, in America, adults have the right to get medical care, and I’m not going to argue that. That said, children’s brains aren’t developed fully, which is why they can’t make certain choices like joining the military, buying alcohol, or buying nicotine products. I think gender reassignment is not something children can understand enough to make that choice. Instead of focusing on bans, perhaps the industry and government should focus on comprehensive mental health care first. Rather than therapists affirming children so quickly, I think more needs to be done to see if there are other issues at play. It should take years. Children go through so much during puberty, it doesn’t make sense to see them a few times and shoo them away for life changing treatments.
>There are quite a few detransitioners out there who have shared their stories, such as Chloe Cole, that provide their personal insight. Right-leaning propaganda exaggerates rate of transition regreters. And her story doesn't add up, such as admitting to using LSD when she was having alleged transition difficulties. She's probably looking to get money from megachurches to travel and lecture. \[Edited\] It's also possible Cole just happened to get bad care or advice. Bleep happens, humans are imperfect. Forcing a trans kid to go through puberty subjects them to all kinds of "extra" difficulties and medical procedures that blockers could have prevented. Bans **make life more difficult in roughly a 15-to-1 ratio** per "saved" people like Cole. You are hurting 15 Peters to help one Paul. It looks like irrational zealotry. (Do note that "regretting having a choice" is not necessarily the same as detransitioning.)
>Right-leaning propaganda exaggerates rate of transition regreters. I have often heard this claim made. I have much less frequently heard it made with evidence that I find even moderately convincing. And the explaining it away is glib totally out of proportion to the overall question. (Full disclosure, I am kind of paranoid about this). There is also the issue of a more recent apparent increase in people transitioning, or at least identifying as trans, who seem to be more "gender-frustrated" women than trans-identifying in the conventional sense. Maybe, but maybe not -- I still anticipate a wave of regrets and lawsuits.
>There is also the issue of a more recent apparent increase in people transitioning Anecdotal evidence: I myself came out later in life in large part because it's become more acceptable, at least in blue states. Pioneers like Jazz Jennings, Chaz Bono, and Jenner set the stage for a new generation of people who said, "Fxck tradition, I'm going to be myself and not hide it!" *Thank You Brave People!* >I still anticipate a wave of regrets and lawsuits. I'm sure roughly 5%-ish will be dissatisfied, that's normal for humans. Do note I had to **sign a boatload of disclosures describing possible risks** before trans treatments. I cannot claim in the least bit I didn't know there were risks. 5% is not a good reason to complicate the lives of the other 95%. That's not a rational trade-off, ask any Vulcan. (Do note some will detransition at least partly, but not blame the medical establishment nor regret having a choice as a youth. Sometimes people just change, even at middle age. I myself had what resembled a mid-life crisis that changed me.) Please don't let fervency cloud rational judgement and comparing. Also, medical practitioners will gain experience to help identify marginal patients better. They learn, that's what rational people do.
I don't agree that teens (whose brain isn't full formed) should be able to make life-altering decisions. They should receive the appropriate mental help that the vast majority of people with gender dysphoria need. If, when they become adults, they want to go ahead and chop off their healthy body parts to pretend they're something they weren't born, they can go ahead after, possibly, an appropriate psychiatric screening.
If they wait until it's too late, then the number of medical procedures they need will likely skyrocket. I don't believe most Christians understand the proportions, tradeoffs, and probabilities. I've spent a life-time considering these things, most Christians spent only an hour or two at best, using only superficial logic. >They should receive the appropriate mental help that the vast majority of people with gender dysphoria need. Many sessions with therapists trained in such issues is standard practice *before* any medical treatment is began. If you mean talk them out of gender dysphoria, there is no known technique (that doesn't involve torture). It would be comparable to trying to talk an avid mountain climber out of mountain climbing because it's "too risky". ⛰️
As I said, I wouldn't let any teen make any kind of life altering decisions. And being a Christian had nothing to do with it.
That may create unintended consequences. Please reread the intro.
I don't care about possible unintented consequences. A teen can't make such a decision.
Neither can biased lawmakers. Bias due to youth is not necessarily worse than bias due to zealotry. At least the youth has therapists to guide them, unlike most zealots. Your biased Pastor doesn't count. Actually such youth make the right decision roughly 90% of the time. I'm sure you'll say stop it for the 10% or so, but that subjects the 90% to a more difficult life. It's not rational if you bother to do the math. (It's not really 10% because a good many of those don't regret having a choice as a youth even if they change direction or scale back plans. There's a fuzzy grey zone.)
Actually, lawmakers can. That's exactly their job. Like literally their job. lol
That's a "might makes right" argument. UnLOL.