Comment by justinjlynn | Hacker News Reader

Comment by justinjlynn | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> A confused child cannot give informed consent in this situation:

I'd imagine you take the position that a child seeking this care is always confused. Could this be mistaken? Your argument would be void, if so.

Further, the quotes you make from the studies you cite are misleadingly cherry-picked - the studies themselves do not support the conclusion you imply they do. They are both calls for further research - they are not studies which draw any conclusions about the risk/benefit trade-offs of treatment and they do not state that treatment should be withheld.

> "The primary risks of pubertal suppression in gender dysphoric youth treated with GnRH agonists include adverse effects on bone mineralization, compromised fertility, and unknown effects on brain development." -https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5290172

No one denies this. Again, it comes down to benefits of treatment versus risks of no treatment.

> "GnRHa therapy prevents maturation of primary oocytes and spermatogonia and may preclude gamete maturation, and currently there are no proven methods to preserve fertility in early pubertal transgender adolescents." - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31319416/

Same here.

Surely a patient and doctor have the right to decide to risk infertility or a lack of bone density later in life in order to prevent severe mental anguish and potential suicide now? Would you rather demand the child continue to suffer so that they can have, according to you - as though it were your decision for whatever creepy reason, the best chance of making more children they may not even want or strong bones they may not even use on account of having committed suicide before reaching adulthood?

> I'd imagine you take the position that a child seeking this care is always confused. Could this be mistaken? I'd conjecture that you believe this to be the case, because you don't address the simple fact that you assume that all children in this circumstance must be confused. If they are not, then they can give informed consent and your claim is void.

A child who insists that he is no longer a male (or never was) is definitely confused.

If that same child insists that he's black, even though both of his biological parents are white, would you take him at his word or save him from getting Dolezal'ed by an unforgiving woke mob?

Children don't make good decisions. Their brains are literally missing the hardware until about age 25. [1] We don't allow them to make permanent changes that they might regret.

1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3621648/

I'm baffled by this because you're acting like not having puberty for a few years is a permanently regretful choice that can never be made by a medical professional assessing a child. If a medical professional assesses a child and determines a prescription of puberty blockers why should I give a shit?

If it's your child, went wouldn't you?

> A child who insists that he is no longer a male (or never was) is definitely confused.

Circular, self-reinforcing, argument. Invalid.

> If that same child insists that he's black, even though both of his biological parents are white, would you take him at his word or save him from getting Dolezal'ed by an unforgiving woke mob?

Non-sequitur. Dismissed. Child still in need of psychological treatment.

> Children don't make good decisions. Their brains are literally missing the hardware until about age 25. [1] We don't allow them to make permanent changes that they might regret.

Sure we do. All the time. We allow them to grow up - that's rather permanent. You're not upset about that. Of course, it just so happens to be something you don't personally disagree with, unlike the topic of discussion.

You allow them to grow up, how magnonimous of you.

Allowing a child to grow up is like allowing a flower to bloom.

There isn't a moral equivalence between interfering in the process and allowing nature to run its course.

> There isn't a moral equivalence between interfering in the process and allowing nature to run its course.

Argument from naturality. The moral equivalence arises from the context and circumstance - not on whether one chooses to interfere or not.

That isn't an objection.

Inaction doesn't require justification unless action is obligatory.

The decision to help a child mutilate himself is never obligatory (or even justifiable).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com