"Men have penises, women have vaginas; here ends my biology lesson."
Jackass
Who said that? I couldn't find it in the article.
No, sorry it from an interview he did. The full quote is
When asked if transgender women can be women on a Talkradio interview show, he was applauded by Julia Hartley-Brewer for his response, stating: "Men have penises, women have vaginas; here ends my biology lesson."
Reported in the financial times, but also quoted in the Wikipedia bio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wes_Streeting
Only for gender dysmorphia.
Which is still stupid to ban it for that, but a lot better than a total ban.
I don't know why people are so worried about it. I was over 6 feet tall and shaving before I was a teenager, if I had been given the option to press pause for a few years I would have jumped on it.
There is pretty much zero negative side effects to puberty blockers, it literally just delays it and early puberty is an issue and one that continues to trend in the wrong direction.
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/kids-health/puberty-starting-earlier-treatment-children-rcna125441
Obviously it can be much worse for girls than boys, but it was still fucking weird being a child and having people twice your age assume you were a peer.
I don't know why people are so worried about it
As far as I understand it, there are two main concerns that people have.
There is very limited data regarding clinical proof that the long term use of puberty blockers is 100% reversible in cases that block puberty during the typical years that you would go through it. Traditionally, puberty blockers would be used in cases where children start puberty at extremely young ages, in these cases the puberty blockers would be withdrawn at an age typical for a child to start puberty.
Leading on from point 1. Many people don't trust children to make decisions that could impact them for the rest of their lives. Some parents are concerned they will be met with their child who is now a young adult to be asked "why the hell did you let me make that decision, don't you know the brain is still developing at that age?". I would not want to be held accountable for the countless stupid things I said or beliefs I held at a young age, so I can see why it is a concern.
Personally, I'm broadly in support of trans rights and what people want to do when they're adults is their own business (as long as they're not hurting anyone), but I think allowing a child to make a decision that may impact them for the rest of their lives is a grey area to say the least. Until conclusive evidence is available I'd draw the line for a child at anything that's not 100% fully reversible.
Traditionally, puberty blockers would be used in cases where children start puberty at extremely young ages
Puberty blockers have been prescribed to transgender youth since the 90s, they're use in combating gender dysphoria is just as much a part of the puberty blocker tradition as their use in combating early puberty.
I would not want to be held accountable for the countless stupid things I said or beliefs I held at a young age, so I can see why it is a concern.
This subtle notion that slips into this discourse that being trans is akin to a make-belief thing is deeply frustrating. No, children were not just being given puberty blockers because they suddenly declared that they weren't their assigned gender. Getting puberty blockers required a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, something I can assure you is not an easy thing to get in this country, and even then still needed a specialist's approval.
This is the worst part of this 'debate', people are led to believe that it's the child deciding for themselves that they get puberty blockers despite the very stringent requirements on their use for trans youths. The point of this entire ordeal is not to protect kids (puberty blocker usage has a 4% regret rate), it's to build up the idea that no amount of safeguards can make the prescribing of trans healthcare acceptable to people you don't believe have full bodily autonomy. Where this goes from here is not looking for other areas in which our medical system is failing children, it's expanding the list of trans people who don't have full bodily autonomy. The Cass Review has already said that autistic people need special consideration.
I think allowing a child to make a decision that may impact them for the rest of their lives is a grey area to say the least.
It's not a child making the decision. It's typically adults making the decision for the sake of the child, and based on the child's needs. The child is involved but it's not like the adults just go along with a childish whim. The decision is made with caution and care and expert consultation, and it is not made lightly.
Deciding to go ahead with puberty is also a decision that impacts a child for the rest of their life. In cases of gender dysmorphia this can cause psychological trauma that won't just clear up, and prolong the agony by forcing the person to live into adulthood with a body that feels deeply wrong. At this point, transitioning can be more difficult because the body may already have taken on pronounced characteristics associated with the wrong gender.
There is very limited data regarding clinical proof that the long term use of puberty blockers is 100% reversible
There is about 40 years of real life use, and I think a good 20 years of study before that?
How much data from clinical studies and real world use do you need to feel comfortable?
Many people don’t trust children to make decisions that could impact them for the rest of their lives
But the permanent effects of puberty blockers are negligible...
What do you think is permanent about them?
I don't think you understand what Puberty Blockers are....
You seem to be wanting to ban something completely different.
The forty years worth of proof you are referring to is in almost all cases where the use was to block early puberty and then allow it to take its course at a normal age. There are very few case studies regarding the extended use of puberty blockers during the years where it would typically take place. I did mention these things.
How much proof I would need is a tough question because it obviously requires testing on children and it's an ethical issue. If a consensus of respected doctors were to agree, I wouldn't argue though.
At the end of the day, I'm not pretending to be an expert in puberty blockers, I'm saying that sometimes children need to be protected from themselves.
Vaccines can have devastating permanent side effects. Should parents no longer vaccinate their children?
The answer for both is:
Whichever option does less harm should be taken. A delayed puberty, despite potential long-term risks does less harm than a trans child going through the "wrong" puberty.
Besides, due to the start of puberty having a pretty large range there should in theory be little harm until the age of 14 or so. And at that age children are much more capable of deciding on medical treatments than as preteens.
If puberty blockers are not reversible and if the person decides that they are not trans in later life, then the consequence would be that they are stuck in a body that doesn't match their self-image.
If that sounds bad to you, well ...
except for use in clinical trials
Let's hope that allows many kids access to the care they need. If there's a real concern about the safety of puberty blockers, then clinical trials are exactly what's needed to find out. I'm not entirely convinced this is really due to medical concern though. It smells like Labour trying to out-bigot the Conservatives, just to prove they're not lefties any more.
My understanding is by medical standards, the evidence is pretty low quality, which is why GnRH agonists aren't approved by the EMA, MHRA, FDA, or NICE for gender dysphoria.
It highlights a wider issue in medicine though, the obsession with randomised controlled trials, which is basically the only evidence the GRADE method considers "high quality". We are seeing exactly the same problem with MDMA assisted therapy, any therapy where blinding is difficult is dismissed by the medical establishment. NICE dismissed (es)ketamine for depression for the same reason. Add to that the fact that GnRH agonists are off patent, so there's no incentive for industry to fund studies.
In a message directly to them, and referencing having come out as gay, he said: “I know it’s not easy being a trans kid in our country today, the trans community is at the wrong end of all of the statistics for mental ill health, self-harm and suicide."
I just wanted to quote this bit of the article, as I feel this is often used in bad faith arguments such as: "I don't hate trans people, I just want to protect them from the bad outcomes that come with being trans."
Do these people ever stop to think that it may be the way that trans people are treated, talked about, and denied essential medical care that contributes to poor mental health outcomes? Maybe if we didn't treat people shittily, they wouldn't feel shit.
General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.