Hacker News Reader

> the large increase of people identifying as trans(trans women in particular)

Well, that's not quite accurate. (a) there isn't a large increase of trans people, historically speaking, just folks being more open and honest about their status recently, since it's become marginally less punished in a few specific places, than it has been prior, and (b) in recent years, trans men or transmasc folks are the largest group of those new influx, not trans women.

> There are massive amounts of compounds in our environment that are endocrine disrupters or mimic sex hormones like estrogen

If people were getting estrogen in the environment that they didn't want in any amount meaningful enough to effect them, you'd wouldn't expect to see more trans women (trans women, generally speaking, are usually deficient in estrogen), you'd expect to see more dysphoric men. You'd expect to see a sharp increase in cis men presenting with ED and gynecomastia and such. (Which, to be fair, is a thing we're seeing. But so far, appears to be mainly linked to increasing obesity rates)

> Maybe they would even benefit more from hormone treatments in the opposite direction than the "gender affirming" treatments.

This is barbaric if you think about it for more than 5 seconds. So barbaric in fact, that it's been outlawed in many nations -- see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_therapy for more info

Additionally, as trans people are more accepted the rate of the increasing population of trans people is slowing. This suggests that it’s stabilizing and that the population would normally always have a % of trans people if it weren’t for oppression (like left handed ness rapidly increased in the generation we stopped punishing people with left handedness and then it leveled off)

Currently it is impossible to know whether the increasing numbers of people identifying as trans is due to less fear of punishment as you say, or due to hormonal disruption. The only way I've thought of is long term studies of endocrine disruption quantification in pregnant mothers and their children, correlated with transexualism.

> This is barbaric if you think about it for more than 5 seconds.

It is barbaric to not even consider a different point of view because it opposes your religion (yes, I think it is a religion at this point)

Sorry if I appear harsh, but I believe that in a couple of decades we will look back at what the pharma industry is doing to "trans" people as we look back on lobotomy now.

The expediency with which children are put on this surgery track is truly disgusting. Let them grow up and decide with a brain that can consent.

Children are not getting surgery in any significant numbers. This is a made up right wing talking point

You could say the same about child abuse. That doesn’t make it not disgusting or unimportant. If you have to hide the things you are doing to children from the parents, you’re doing a bad thing.

Not necessarily true. A bunch of parents would prohibit their children from using contraceptives if they had total control.

The notion that it’s a school’s place to usurp the parent’s choices of how to raise the kid is the problem here. If the majority of the parents oppose that, the school shouldn’t do it. It’s a public school, it should serve the interests and desires of the public.

A majority of parents opposed integration, doesn't mean they shouldn't have done it.

Leave it to the left to liken freeing the slaves to coercing children into irreversible surgery.

My school taught me the difference between 'integration' and 'emancipation'.

And my school taught me the definition of consent.

> You'd expect to see a sharp increase in cis men presenting with ED and gynecomastia and such.

It does feel like I've seen more men with more than just regular moobs, who aren't necessarily otherwise severely obese. The trans women I know have less shapely breasts even though they're deliberately taking hormones, and it's a bit bizarre. Not a huge amount, but enough to notice. I'd be willing to believe also that there's a contingent of those that are trans men too, but I just mean it's actually more bizarre to see someone who is otherwise just a cis man with like C or D cups

It might be the case that endocrine disruptors may be increasing the likelihood a person is trans, but what you are proposing is almost certainly incorrect and would not work. Using sex-aligned hormones to cause a person to become cisgender is sometimes tried and does not appear to be effective, and I am not aware of any evidence that transgender people's pre-transition hormone levels are substantially lower than their cisgender peers. Also, this theory would suggest that eunuchs, self-identified men who voluntarily undergo gonad removal, would generally come to identify as women, but this is not the case; Similarly for men who have their testosterone suppressed as part of cancer treatment.

> Also, this theory would suggest that eunuchs, self-identified men who voluntarily undergo gonad removal, would generally come to identify as women, but this is not the case

Not necessarily, there are other possibilities, for example the mechanism might not be lack of male hormones, but elevated female hormones, or environmental contaminant analogs thereof.

If true, it would likely be much more complicated than simply hormone levels. Many trans people have their hormones tested before HRT[1] to establish a baseline and then again after starting to dial in the correct dosage. If it were that simple, baseline testing would reveal it en mass.

The hormone panel is typically T,E1,E2, but human hormonal pathways are complex[2] and not fully understood. There are, for examples, hypotheses involving "backdoor" pathways that should/could be verified, but aren't due to lack of research funding directed toward an admittedly small group of people.

1. That's not to say all or even most, but it is very very common.

2. https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Diag...

< Using sex-aligned hormones to cause a person to become cisgender is sometimes tried and does not appear to be effective

How well documented is this, like when this has been tried has it been done as part of a formal medical study? What I'm really hoping is someone can say something like "here's the randomized controlled trial comparing treatments".

> Also, this theory would suggest that eunuchs, self-identified men who voluntarily undergo gonad removal, would generally come to identify as women, but this is not the case; Similarly for men who have their testosterone suppressed as part of cancer treatment.

Could that be explained by the unfortunate lack of trans acceptance?

Maybe, but I find that unlikely, particularly for eunuchs; Being a Eunuch is arguably more socially stigmatised than being a transsexual.

I think the simpler explanation is that young kids are doing something they see as trendy, popular, and supported to such an absurd degree that you immediately get internet points and patted on the back for doing literally nothing.

This is not the first time I have seen a question like this asked on HN. It's generally really controversial to ask it because trans individuals are fighting for recognition, rights and humane treatment at the most basic level, so it generally gets taken as a means to be dismissive and attack their cause rather than helpful and suggesting a possible alternative path for at least some trans individuals.

The world has changed quite a lot in recent decades in ways that have substantial impact on how much info is available, how much an individual can explore their own internal identity and myriad other things and it's unfortunately mostly not talked about in those terms.

We also pass out medicalized labels for all kinds of things that used to be handled differently. A child who might have been labeled shy at one time might get diagnosed with selective mutism these days and receive an IEP at school for it.

It's a really complicated topic. This is a big forum. It's not really a question that's likely to get meaningfully hashed out here in some good faith fashion that has some hope of moving things forward, either scientifically or in terms of human rights.

If you are seriously curious about this, I suggest you explore it more quietly than tossing out questions on a front page post on HN. It's not that such questions cannot be asked and explored, it's just this is a really tough way to do it and have it go good places.

I tend to respectfully disagree.

Same question is of my interest as well and I find local community to be well openminded compared to other online communities where raising this kind of question will be widely perceived as offence to vocal trans community.

That's one of many spaces where we can openly bring it up and respectfully discuss.

It's quite difficult to explore the topic on your own without hearing other people.

I have no idea what you are disagreeing with. Could you clarify what exactly you are arguing against in what I have said?

You suggest to explore the topic more quietly, which is something I am opposed to.

You are opposed to people reading whatever they so desire privately, talking to people in smaller groups where controversy has a tendency to be less problematic and where one may have more hope of being understood and engaged on the points one intended to make instead of on points other people imagined you made that never crossed your mind, asking questions on HN under circumstances where there is less likelihood of strong pushback merely for asking?

Why?

In my experience, that's how one typically finds good info and meaningful feedback and does so with less pain than can be involved in standing on a big stage in front of everyone with a bullhorn and blaring their "controversial" supposed "position" to the world, knowing the world will scream back, often without making any real effort to understand what was actually said -- or so it can feel on the receiving end.

Right.

Personally I am open to any discussions as it is the only way known so far to explore and understand other people.

Certainly there may and probably will be some pushback and some people may get offended along the way. And that's alright. It shouldn't be the reason for censoring or shunning any topics. Nowadays we have growing share of people in society who are offended with anything and it's a sign of immaturity, not a healthy discussion.

Adults on the contrary, are called adults because among other things they can look at stuff and openly discuss everything, particularly things that may not portray them well.

Shunning discussion because it can hurt someone leads to large misunderstanding on subjects and multiplies weird beliefs that have nothing to do with reality.

I wasn't talking about censoring or shunning anything.

I also wasn't telling you, in specific, what to do.

It was a good faith suggestion of best practices based on substantial experience with being very controversial and trying to find a path forward on my interests under circumstances where my willingness to debate, my ability to be thick-skinned and so forth were not getting me the desired results and were coming at an excessive cost.

Not sure why you are getting so defensive.

I've expressed disagreement with your PoV and explained why when you asked.

We have exchanged opinions and that's great. Let's not dig further.

Have a good day.

If it's controversial why should it be relegated to back pages?

The front page is the perfect place for such communication, the lack of truly social discourse and individualistic isolation is what creates such reactionary tension while trying to reconcile all the distortions in the zeitgeist of the world.

I think mental stressors of such social failure is whats leading to such childish ideas that adults seem to preoccupy their lives with today, and environmental pollution is definitely contributing to bringing those about.

If it's controversial why should it be relegated to back pages?

I didn't suggest it should be.

I will note that so far I have two replies, both nominally "arguing against" my supposed "position" here. Both strike me as a wild misinterpretation of what I have said.

And that's exactly why tossing out questions or comments on a front page post on a large forum can be problematic.

Which isn't to say one should never do such. But it's frequently not exactly gratifying.

If you ever need an example of “chilling”, just reread that last paragraph. HN front page is a great place to discuss these issues; there are lots of thoughtful and intelligent minds to iterate on an answer.

No. Trans people have existed for quite a long time. It just happens that the "West" has become more accepting of them, and since it is the "West" that gets most of the media attention it's looking like a new thing with them coming out.

Proving the existence of noise does not prove the non-existence of a signal.

These things are not mutually exclusive. I don't see any evidence that would justify a high degree of confidence that the person you're replying to is wrong.

The extraordinary claim is the top comment: that trans people are exploding in count vs it being a repressed demographic.

It is the obligation of THAT person to provide evidence, since they are making the claim that it is some "evil toxin in the environment".

Nobody has said that the population is exploding or that there is an evil toxin. The evidence here is for a proliferation of endocrine disrupting compounds. Given that gender expression is affected by hormones, I don't see how the claim is extraordinary.

Maybe because we have more trans people we get more accepting and not the other way around? Just a thought, correlation is not causation and all that.

Why is the "West" in quotes? Typically authors use that to refer to a phrase they're replying to, but parent comment doesn't mention that.

Alternatively, quotes are sometimes used in a dismissive manner, but it would be unusual for an author to be dismissive of a word and yet find value in introducing it into a conversation.

This is joe rogan level speculative nonsense.

To be fair, so is your dismissive statement in calling it nonsense. Maybe expand on that? I for one have thought the same thing many times and am finding the conversation here quite interesting.

(Back in 1920)

"One thing that I'm genuinely curious about that I've never heard addressed is whether the large increase of people identifying as left-handed could be related to the same factors that are causing ..."

https://twitter.com/ithayla/status/1410339332477517826