'An explosion': what's behind a rise in girls questioning their gender identity? | Hacker News Reader

'An explosion': what's behind a rise in girls questioning their gender identity?

theguardian.com

19 pointsMilnerRoute55 comments

I kind of despise how so much of our current politics and tribalism often prevents what I call the "both of these things can, and likely are, true" hypotheses. Instead you have each side demanding that only their "thing" is true.

In this case, I think it's highly likely that both of these things are true:

1. A society that is much more accepting of trans and other gender identities means that young people who would have previously hidden or suppressed their feelings of gender dysphoria will now seek out help to navigate these feelings.

2. Everyone, especially young people and teenagers, want to feel special and stand out, and while non-traditional gender identities were previously demonized, they can now serve as a way to be special and demand attention in certain societal groups. This, some young people who are going through the confusing feelings of puberty may be much more likely to say they are trans or non-binary, even if this is something they may not feel as strongly about when they reach adulthood.

Could be, though neither of these explain quite why it is girls in particular who are attempting to identify out of their sex, in a much larger ratio than boys.

Perhaps one root cause is that girls are uncomfortably sexualised much more than boys (as in, the 'male gaze'), and some try to escape this by adopting a belief that they're not girls / young women.

I do believe it is a way to evade expectations, which are in my opinion much higher than for boys in the current culture. But I doubt it is boys oogling them.

It isn't their fault and not the fault of boys. On the contrary, I believe the expectations are much more often expressed by peers and parents.

Until recently, such gender deviance was almost uniformly met with shunning, violence, and involuntary commitment. NHS did not offer these services. Culture has changed to be more permissive. NHS now offers these services, and are seeing demand. PANIC!!!

The link for this submission...

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33744670

That's easy. Any one can see that society demands more of women than of men. Clothing and behavioral norms are more elaborate. Women work and typically do more household chores and childcare. Younger women are expected to allow sometimes aggressive flirting. There's lots more, like potential jobs are more restricted and women get less pay. There's also a pink tax - products for women cost more.

If you see these limitations and restrictions on you, why would you go along with them, if an alternative exists?

Gender envy works both ways. More women graduate college than men, women face less social isolation and women also live longer than men. The future is feminine, in developed countries it's way better to be a woman if you can become one rather than become a man. No one is forcing you to have kids or do household chores these days and gender pay gap is largely a myth. Rather these days you have women being preferred over similarly competent men in corporate companies to fullfill diversity quotas.

Interesting observation.

Also “verboten” to ask, unfortunately.

You are not allowed to question whether someone “decided” to pursue such an option.

It may not have even been a conscious decision as such. Being constantly bombarded with messages of this is what a woman should be may well have this effect subconsciously.

You are not allowed to hold this opinion, or discuss it. Any option regarding transgenderism must equate, basically to "they were born this way". Choice in this matter is evidently not possible.

You are also not allowed to question whether this state of affairs is reasonable.

Welcome to HN!

You just elucidated that viewpoint on HN.

And will undoubtedly have all his posts killed in a day or so, and probably be threatened with banning by dang if he doesn't change his views

Wow, that's crazy, none of what you said came true

Almost as if assuming you know more about someone's identity than they do doesn't make you some critical-thinking free speech martyr, just a presumptuous preacher telling other people how to live and express themselves.

The book describing this phenomenon came out two years ago, and was called one of the best books of the year by the Economist and the London Times:

https://www.amazon.com/Irreversible-Damage-Transgender-Seduc...

It's a very good read. Helen Joyce's Trans and Kathleen Stock's Material Girls are also excellent critiques of this movement.

Joyce pushes an antisemitic conspiracy theory. She claims she made a simple error with the names of two charities. (George Soros made a very large donation to a human rights charity, and a very much smaller donation to a pro-trans charity, and Joyce swaps these around to make out Soros paid huge amounts to pro-trans organisations). But, we know it's an antisemitic conspiracy theory because we know where Joyce plagiarised it from - Jennifer Bilek.

If you haven't already, please educate yourself with Joyce's rebuttals of these false claims: https://www.thehelenjoyce.com/a-wild-ride

She's wrong though. We know she's wrong because the mistake she made is the exact same mistake Bilek made.

Bilek claimed Soros had made a huge donation to a pro-trans organisation.He hadn't, he'd made a small donation to a pro-trans organisation, and a very much larger donation to an international human rights organisation.

Joyce repeated those without checking - and it would have been a simple fact check.

When ever anyone talks about shadowy funding from Soros it's almost always an antisemitic conspiracy theory, and Bilek's later comments are very clear: she believes transition is a plot by Jewish people to spread post-humanism.

Obviously Joyce is now feeling a bit uncomfortable about having platformed and promoted this person, and she's back-peddling her support a bit. But the fact remains, she used to support Bilek, she spoke to Bilek frequently, she reposted comments from Bilek, and she included Bilek talking points in her book.

Rather than being honest and admitting she made a mistake she's simply lying about events and using legal threats to silence critics.

https://twitter.com/Chican3ry/status/1416557294595231744

https://twitter.com/christapeterso/status/141659996421444813...

Helen Joyce is an eugenics advocate who has stated that she believes it is necessary to reduce the number of transgender people, even happily-transitioned ones, because she sees them as "damaged" and "a huge problem to a sane world" because they require "special accomodation".

She is not a eugenics advocate. That is a truly nonsensical summary of her viewpoint.

It is a straightforwardly true description of what she said.

Here's a link. [ https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2022/06/03/helen-joyce-transgende... ] It contains direct quotes and video of her statements. Her statements quoted in the first section constitute support for involuntary eugenics; this means she is an eugenics advocate.

No it's not, and no she isn't.

She's talking about reducing the number of transitions. As in, discouraging or limiting the medicinal and surgical interventions that people who are unhappy with their sex sometimes pursue.

She is not advocating for people to be exterminated or sterilised or anything like that. That is an absurd reinterpretation of what she actually said.

She is advocating for reducing the size of a population that she sees as "damaged" because she believes that they place a burden upon society, and she is advocating this in opposition to that group, who would like to continue to exist as they are. I see these as sufficient conditions to call her position "eugenics advocacy". But if removal from the gene pool is a necessary condition in your view, then there are multiple studies linking access to various kind of gender-affirming care with lower rates of suicidal ideation. It's easily Googleable,

She does not specify any sort of medical procedure, and refers to people "dissociated from their sex", so she's probably talking about all trans people, including people who merely change their name, pronouns, and mode of dress.

That she specifically includes those who are happily transitioned shows that this is not motivated by compassion. By including them, she is making it absolutely clear that she wants to prevent people against their will from being able to transition. Most people who transition describe it as enormously benificial. She wants to reduce their number because she describes them as a "problem".

Again, that is a wildly inaccurate reinterpretation of what she was actually talking about.

When criticizing what someone has said, please consider addressing their actual viewpoint, rather than some fantasy you've invented.

Is it possible that young girls are naturally somewhat open to suggestion by their peer group and authority figures?

Unfortunately, asking such a question is “verboten”.

This will not end well, unless addressed directly and forcefully.

I guess what’s wrong with girls questioning their gender identity? I imagine both girls and boys are open to suggestion from their peer group. What will not end well? What needs to be addressed directly and forcefully?

Everyone going through a phase, temporary or permanent, where they question their identities, gender or otherwise seems like a positive change to me. I foresee a world where _not_ questioning these fundamental identities is the oddity.

I think questioning ones gender identity is fine, and a good thing.

I have significant concerns when the "default" response to these questions leads to powerful drugs taken during puberty, or irreversible surgeries before one reaches adulthood.

It is not even slightly the "default" response. It takes years of dedicated effort to prove to a slew of doctors and therapists that it's the right thing to do. You don't just get surgery or hormones just by asking for them.

> It takes years of dedicated effort to prove to a slew of doctors and therapists that it's the right thing to do.

There are still many publicized cases of puberty blockers being given to young children (i.e. before 12 years of age). At least in some places in the US it most definitely does not require "years of dedicated effort to prove to a slew of doctors" to have these drugs prescribed.

Also, there have been some pretty well publicized stories of young people who underwent gender transitions who came to strongly regret their decision, and they told how they felt, if not necessarily pressured into the decision, that there weren't "speed bumps" along the way saying "maybe we should wait a little longer before you undergo irreversible surgery."

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-51676020

> There are still many publicized cases of puberty blockers being given to young children (i.e. before 12 years of age).

You know that's the licensed use for these meds, right? To block precocious puberty?

I wasn't referring to the use of these meds for precocious puberty, in which case meds are given to delay puberty and then stopped. I was referring to their use for trans kids where they are continued indefinitely until they are followed by hormone treatment.

Again, my primary concern is the administration of irreversible treatments to children.

Puberty blockers are not irreversible.

They sure are well-publicized. Every individual incident becomes a standard-bearer for a right wing who has zero interest in any of the people whom transitioning has helped.

Your response exactly exemplifies what I wrote in my top-level comment, where there is an unwillingness on both sides to accept a "both of these can be true simultaneously" posture.

Yes, I agree, I have seen many on "the right" take singular examples to demonize the other side with no real concern about the welfare of the individuals involved.

But I have also pretty much never seen those on "the left" empathize with and stand up for the individuals who have regretted their transitions or used it to reexamine some of their views. More often than not I see these individuals demonized as "tools of the right".

I have seen trans-friendly people who empathize with people who regretted their transition. The important thing was that that person was not trying to get gender-affirming medical care restricted.

Several detransitioners have claimed that being prescribed cross-sex hormones took just one or two appointments. Any previous safeguarding of this process seems to have been greatly diminished in recent years.

Regarding surgery, there is a rather infamous 'gender-affirming' surgeon, Dr Sidhbh Gallagher, who specialises in double mastectomies for young women and children. The youngest so far is apparently only 13, and patients report not much gatekeeping for this procedure either, from her surgery. She's infamous mostly for TikTok videos where she exhorts Gen Z viewers to "yeet the teets", but also for some horror stories about poor follow-up care, with some patients nearly dying.

Bad doctors exist so good doctors should not be allowed to practice. Got it.

I have significant concerns when the "default" response to these questions leads to powerful drugs taken during puberty,

That's not the default, very few children who went through GIDS got access to meds. The majority got no meds.

> or irreversible surgeries before one reaches adulthood.

Does not happen in England.

It's okay to have concerns, but you should make more of an effort to base those on what actually happens rather than on disinformation being spread by anti-trans organisations.

> Does not happen in England.

Does happen in the US.

You mean intersex children, right? Or you don't care about them because, er, reasons?

So... people criticizing your questions constitutes "forbidden", only in German for extra oomph.

But if they want to ask questions, it must be "addressed directly and forcefully".

They're learning about themselves. You want to apply "force". Would that not be a more apt application of the word "verboten"?

Pink triangle represent. This was tried before.

https://www.teenvogue.com/story/lgbtq-institute-in-germany-w...

In Canada, it is literally forbidden to help children introspect about the reasons and consequences of such profound decisions as discussed here.

Forbidding assistance to youths, to introspect, must be forcefully rejected — it has disastrous consequences.

Are you talking about conversion therapy? That's straight up abuse. Darn tootin that's illegal.

Yes.

In Canada, any discussion that isn’t direct affirmation is considered similar to “conversation therapy” and could lead to me losing my daughter.

Conversations starting with: “Hmm. That’s a big decision with many consequences; perhaps it would be best to wait and see how it feels to be a woman before you decide, wouldn’t it?” are now an offense punishable by the loss of your child, if reported.

You won’t believe this, of course, because it sounds insane.

No, I don't believe it, because I'm familiar with the law in Canada and what you're describing is perfectly legal. You're pushing disinformation. It sounds insane because it is not true.

Bill C-4:

.. conversion therapy means a practice .. designed to .. (f) repress or reduce a person’s gender expression that does not conform to the sex assigned to the person at birth.

Exactly what I just described.

So, in a court of law, I would lose, and be convicted of violating bill C-4.

You're going to have to work pretty hard to define that extremely normal conversation that parents have with their children as a "practice, treatment or service."

This is good news for big pharma. Transgender medicine presents a huge revenue opportunity.

Monetizing a human by charging them a subscription fee to be who they identify as is a new subscription model that can last a lifetime.

The LTV is huge. The issue is that not many folks identify as trans. If anything, it would be in the interest of Pfizer to encourage more kids to question their identity and transition.

You're claiming that providing a cheap, unpatented, medication to 0.5% of the population is some kid of growth opportunity when the same meds are used for nearly 1 in 3 women?

They already have that with ...most patients.

Didn't you read the Goldman Sachs analysis? Cures aren't good business. Symptom mitigation is where it's at.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endocrine_disruptor

There are endocrine disruptors all over in our food, in our environment, and even our clean water.

The government is intentionally not banning such chemicals.

How long have they been present for? If more than a few years, then they can't be why, since the article says that 10 years ago, this wasn't a problem.

>How long have they been present for? If more than a few years, then they can't be why, since the article says that 10 years ago, this wasn't a problem.

I doubt I'll be able to reply to you, quite downvoted.

In my source you'll find most dates are in the 2011-2013 era. Hence 10 years ago.

The allegation that "10 years ago it wasnt a problem" is quite inaccurate. Most of these problem are occurring during pregnancy and pre-puberty. Whereas the damage is done, but then you have to wait some period of time until gender dysphoria really occurs. So it's completely a delayed action. So this absolutely is a factor.

In terms of all endocrine blocker exposures. Some pre-exist 10 years ago like phytoestrogens in soy products; but most were greatly introduced about 10 years ago.

Won't be surprised to find chinese/russian influence in this as well. Tiktok which teenagers use is full of such themes. Transitioning permanently to another gender in majority of cases makes the person incapable of procreation which in turn might lead to a sizeable population collapse if such trends keep increasing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com