Hacker News Reader

Comment by vextea | Hacker News Reader

Besides the bait, if the claim is that the evidence for treatment is weak (or well, "evil") a study with appropriate safeguards seems like it should be welcomed not eschewed.

View on HN

Weak doesn't mean "evil" here. If the effect is strong, but a lot of kids end up regretting it later, then this would be bad.

In this case regretting it generally means stopping taking blockers and letting puberty progress as it would without the intervention. Puberty blockers give time to assess if further intervention is needed later (such as hormone replacement therapy)

That's not true. There was recently a woman who ended up with a masculinized body with apparently no room to revert the change.

There was an old woman who lived in a shoe. She had so many children, she didn't know what to do.

See, you can say literally anything without citing a source.

Interesting that you didn't say this to the previous commenter who also didn't provide a source for their claim.

Anyway, here is what I was referring to: https://www.reddit.com/r/detrans/comments/x1j5t9/i_cant_live...

Interesting that you apparently can’t distinguish between puberty blockers and HRT. When women use puberty blockers, it does not make them develop male traits.

What’s even more interesting is that you value Reddit as a citable source. What other valuable resources have you used to inform your opinion?

Interesting that you apparently can't distinguish between children and women. If you think the Reddit report is fake, say so explicitly.

Are you saying you believe if children use puberty blockers they will develop male traits?

Are you saying you would cite Reddit as a valid source?

Oof.

> Are you saying you believe if children use puberty blockers they will develop male traits?

They will fail to develop their respective sex-typical traits, which in turn is typical of the opposite sex.

> Are you saying you would cite Reddit as a valid source?

Is there any reason to think the Reddit report is fake? If not, it is fine for me to refer to it. Besides, you were the one asking for a reference. Do you think she should have posted this to the arxiv? You are moving the goal posts.

That’s not how puberty works. Delaying puberty doesn’t make a child develop the “opposite sex’s” puberty. A boy on puberty blockers doesn’t start growing breasts because of the blockers, and a girl doesn’t develop a deeper voice because of the blockers. Puberty blockers pause sex-hormone-driven development. They don’t replace testosterone with estrogen or vice versa. The absence of masculinization is not feminization, and the absence of feminization is not masculinization.

I’m not implying that the single Reddit post you refer to is fake. I’m stating that relying on a single Reddit post as the basis of your entire argument is factually weak.

> The absence of masculinization is not feminization, and the absence of feminization is not masculinization.

It is, to a certain degree. An man/woman who didn't develop several of their respective sex traits will automatically appear more feminine/masculine because these are polar opposites.

That is entirely subjective, from a biological standpoint you couldn’t be more wrong

Quite the contrary, it makes perfect biological sense for all kinds of sexually dimorphic animals.

Perhaps it makes sense to you, but I’m not surprised by that at this point

~1% regret rate.

https://apnews.com/article/transgender-treatment-regret-detr...

Counterpoint: https://segm.org/regret-detransition-rate-unknown

> And since gender transition is a lifelong process required to maintain a masculinized or feminized appearance, instances of medical detransition—reported by one study as reaching 30% within just 4 years of initiating treatment—is an alarming warning signal of high numbers of inappropriate transitions.

Your source is fake.

"The Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine (SEGM) is an anti-trans organization that is known for its opposition to gender-affirming care for transgender youth and for engaging in political lobbying. SEGM is known for transgender health care misinformation. It has falsely claimed that the majority of transgender children desist, argued that gender exploratory therapy should be the first line treatment for those under 25, and promoted the scientifically unsupported theory of rapid-onset gender dysphoria. SEGM is often cited in anti-transgender legislation and court cases, sometimes filing court briefs."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_for_Evidence-Based_Gen...

Wikipedia is also known to be heavily biased on these matters.

Dutch study (Steensma 2013) followed 127 children who were referred to the Gender Identity clinic in Amsterdam under the age of 12. The study looked to see if these children were still gender dysphoric by the time they reached adolescence at age fifteen. 37% of these children had persisted. However 64% of children had either desisted or were no longer traceable. Since there is only one Gender Identity clinic for children in Holland it can be assumed that the latter no longer required support and so had also desisted

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49126491

Reply on news.ycombinator.com