113 karma · joined August 27, 2023
> And I say this as someone who is themselves not heterosexual, and who has a non-cisgender partner.
That really doesn't mean much.
I really don't think anyone considers the case of Kathleen to be intersex, seems more like a strawman.
> Data processing by advertising providers including personalised advertising with profiling Consent required for free use
How legal is this?
Why the scarequotes? For the record I don't think I have used these two words together, but I obviously do think that kids can be trans just like anyone else, is that even debatable?
> don't get prescribed blockers
I am quoting here out of context but correct, there is no point in puberty blockers before the "natural" puberty.
> There is an assessment period. They are assessed for gender dysphoria, and if diagnosed they may be prescribed puberty blockers to treat their gender dysphoria
Sure, and we have been saying that these criteria are unscientific, inaccurate, and based on social stereotype.
> at the end of the day these are the criteria that would be used to approve puberty blockers
The difference being that teenagers who don't explicitly seek them because they don't consider themselves as trans are never considered for undergoing puberty blockers. All that study shows is what we have been saying all the time about the DSM.
> If you think these criteria erroneously include kids who aren't "trans kids" then we're approving puberty blockers for patients who aren't "trans kids".
No, because teenagers who don't consider themselves trans do not seek puberty blockers and are therefore never considered for them. The main distinguisher between trans and nontrans people is their self identification.
> Of course a longer follow up time is strictly better, but it's not valid to simply fill in a gap in data with whatever better suits your worldview. There certainly seems to be a pattern.
I don't think it's surprising or debatable that trans people who undergo conversion therapy or grow up in oppressive/conservative environments often end up repressing.
I am talking about d6e
> This is called "anecdote"
When you are lacking proper research all you are going to get are anecdotes. Let's not put our heads in the sand.
> with a mean followup time of over 10 years, most of the people who transitioned 5-15 years later would be counted as persisters, not desisters.
10-15 years means that you are 25-30 if you came out at 15. At that point people often self-medicate with hrt and nobody ends up knowing. The mean age of 10 years is because they tracked younger children, if you came out at 7 its unlikely that you will transition at 17 with unsupportive parents, especially back then.
> Do you have any actual evidence that a significant portion of desisters in this study transitioned later in life?
I don't have enough funds to perform such a research, maybe there exists such a paper but I have not looked for it. In general trans topics are woefully underfunded. But I know enough people that ended up desisting either due to conversion therapy or due to shame and lack of support from their family, and transitioned years afterwards (5-15+ years) after living shitty and depressing empty lives pretending to be cis.
You will say "but then you were not a desister" but I would be counted as one, just like the other kids in my position.
I have seen multiple competing definitions.
- People who are transitioning socially
- People who are transitioning medically (hrt)
- People who have transitioned surgically (depends what surgeries the person that says it considers necessary)
- Using some biological distinguisher (this lets you refer to people who are currently repressing as trans, and makes it an inherent property of a person that was predetermined)
- People who want to transition (socially, hormonally, surgically)
- People who have dysphoria
- People who have an f64 diagnosis
Etc
> the other could be rendered infertile due to hormones pr castration.
With the alternative of being mutilated forever due to testosterone and being forced to waste decades of your life existing in limbo.
Although I should note that the claim that trans people become permanently infertile due to hormones is questionable.
Usually such techniques tend to not work when they are suggested by people who haven't experienced the consdition and haven't put serious thought into them.
I really doubt even lower ranking actual diplomats could reasonably expect to get away with running over an elderly Japanese grandma in Japan.
Nearly all the smaller countries would waive even up to a minister-counsellor’s immunity in that scenario.
Is this surprising? 20 years ago in many parts of the world the only way to survive as a trans person was through prostitution. You would be forced to live as an outcast, far away from "normal people". There were barely any legal protections, you could often not change your legal sex, finding any information about what this is or its treatments (not a fetish, something that millions experience, can't be "converted away", hormones exist, etc) was nearly impossible. Most people would see you as a freak.
> A lot of it has to do not with the label itself but with the industry. Where someone in the past would be called a “tomboy” or “femboy” today they would have a different diagnosis, the DSM-5 would be consulted, etc.
This is not true. Trans people don't go to a doctor and ask them if they are trans. Rather trans people generally arrive at the realization of what they are by themselves, usually before seeking any professional help about it. The DSM is not consulted (and if it is, it's done post-facto by someone acting as a gatekeeper and trying to fill boxes).
Many people who called themselves femboys in the past ended up transitioning after becoming more informed about the whole topic and realizing that transitioning their sex and living as their true self is an option rather than something they had to do in secret.
Sadly this doesn't really work due to the current state of psychiatry where many people with legitimate issues are being denied a diagnosis and treatment (see for example: trans healthcare and gatekeeping, adhd healthcare, etc). It is even more weird because often when you go to two different doctors you will get different results.
Not to mention that usually to even explore the idea of getting an official diagnosis you start with a self diagnosis.
> But the vast majority of self-diagnosed "gluten sensitives" do not have such conditions.
If you believe that you have celiac but for whatever reason you haven't been able to test it yet, then there is no harm to try going glutten free. The real issue is how many people deny the very existence of glutten sensitivity and put these people in danger. If you look at communities of people with the disease you will see what I am talking about.