Puberty blockers have been used for decades for a variety of other uses, but it seems like its most common use is to treat precocious puberty, which has a number of undesirable psychological side-effects.
What sticks out to me is that the medicine is not being withdrawn for anything other than gender dysphoria. It's a very bizarre line to draw for such a supposedly controversial medicine.
It's about balancing benefits with downsides and risks, and those can vary from condition to condition, and from case to case. The other day I saw a story about puberty in a 2-year old, which is quite a different condition than gender dysphoria.
All I know is the "harmless and completely reversible with no effects" is not backed by evidence, as people have been saying for years. I'd say that from what I know, puberty blockers are probably the right choice for a large number of kids with gender dysphoria, but probably not all. I doubt that "it's the right choice for 95% of kids, but it may or may not cause long-term effects, we don't really know" would be accepted for any other medication.
If people had been actually researching this instead of obsessing over JK Rowling and generally being an asshole on twitter then everyone would be better off by now, trans kids most of all.
Which is a bizarre choice on its face, given that children with precocious puberty tend to be on these drugs for longer than those with gender dysphoria.
> If people had been actually researching this instead of obsessing over JK Rowling and generally being an asshole on twitter then everyone would be better off by now, trans kids most of all.
I believe that transgender people and their supporters are rightfully worried that this is the harbinger to significantly restricting or altogether banning gender-affirming care across the board, even for consenting and informed adults. If I thought I would lose access to medication that allowed me to not only function, but live a happier and more fulfilling life, as is the case in many US states, I'd be a bit cross as well.
Then again, I also don't feel like laying this problem at Twitter users' feet is very productive, considering how much of a trash fire the site is in its sum total no matter what conversation you're having.
If the question we are ultimately asking ourselves is if a drug that is used to block puberty in children is dangerous, the myopia of the cass review seems self-inflicted.
Precocious puberty is first and foremost a source of mental distress, just like gender dysphoria. The intended result of puberty blockers - blocking puberty - is the same in both cases.
Blocking puberty in children is not a novel use of puberty blocking drugs.
It is an procedure distinct from the mere delaying of precocious puberty.
In other words, it is very much in line with being cautious when it comes to children's healthcare, and any theoretical downside of taking the medicine needs to be weighed against the downside of abstaining from the only medication used to treat gender dysphoria in children.
Being a woman sucks, physiologically, compared to being a man. You have more heart attacks; you have brittle bones; you're weak.
But is that worth incurring if it means you don't kill yourself?
The reality is that our legacy biology is a clown show. The real and durable solution is to go posthuman. Until then, it's hacks upon hacks.