Redstone said:

---

Terrible response.

Puberty blockers are ALWAYS wrong.

Second, i "don't understand"…. Really? Care to quote?

---

So puberty blockers are even wrong for precocious puberty? You have no idea what you're even talking about.

Redstone said:

---

Another ridiculous response. Quite a roll here.

Don't support X, therefore you must be OK with kid suicide!

Yeah, sure.

---

Sweetie, you're essentially calling me evil and Satanic. I was just going with your change of tone. I'm sorry you're lashing out because you can't support your statements. No need to be so testerical.

Redstone said:

---

Terrible response.

Puberty blockers are ALWAYS wrong.

Second, i "don't understand"…. Really? Care to quote?

---

Uh, you said puberty blockers cause sterility. That's not true. I even provided a link.

Redstone said:

---

There you have it, posters and lurkers.

I'm not sure how we can continue our conversation.

What you just detailed is fundamentally evil. That is NOT "treatment."

---

This is something that really irks me. How you guys can take such complicated issues and categorically call them evil. This is a complex ****ing issue. If the child is on board, and the parent is on board, and there are doctors who are on board, what is so ****ing evil about it? Hint: it's not, it just doesn't suit your fancy. This is what fundamentally ends the conversation. Taking a legitimate line of inquiry and dismissing it as evil. At worse, and I mean at absolutely ****ing worse, maybe it's wrong, maybe it's harmful, but what's not evil is parents trying a course of action that they believe will help their child when the child and a doctor is on board.

It's the same thing with the abortion debate. There are two very fundamental rights clashing with one another: the right of the child to exist, and the right of the woman to control what happens to her body. I don't ****ing understand how some of you are so sure of one side or the other being absolutely correct. The only real moral evil I see here is the self-assuredness of people who say there is nothing to discuss, and dismiss the other side as evil.

Since you seem to be ignorant about not only transgender-related issues, but also precocious puberty, here are some of the risks. They've been used for precocious puberty since the early 1990's.

dargscisyhp said:

---

Redstone said:

---

There you have it, posters and lurkers.

I'm not sure how we can continue our conversation.

What you just detailed is fundamentally evil. That is NOT "treatment."

---

This is the thing that irks me most about the religious. How you guys can take such complicated issues and categorically call them evil. This is a complex ****ing issue. If the child is on board, and the parent is on board, and there are doctors who are on board, what is so ****ing evil about it? Hint: it's not, it just doesn't suit your fancy. This is what fundamentally ends the conversation. Taking a legitimate line of inquiry and dismissing it as evil. At worse, and I mean at absolutely ****ing worse, maybe it's wrong, maybe it's harmful, but what's not evil is parents trying a course of action that they believe will help their child when the child and a doctor is on board.

It's the same thing with the abortion debate. There are two very fundamental rights clashing with one another: the right of the child to exist, and the right of the woman to control what happens to her body. I don't ****ing understand how some of you are so sure of one side or the other being absolutely correct. The only real moral evil I see here is the self-assuredness of people who say there is nothing to discuss, and dismiss the other side as evil.

---

Pubertal blockade has implications for fertility preservation, transgender surgical care and psychosocial health….
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41585-020-0372-2?proof=t

Maybe you are correct about no / little impact.
I don't think so, and it's much more of an open question than you stated.

Redstone said:

---

Puberty blockers as "treatment."

CHILDREN.

Here we are.

Good day, gentlemen.

---

If you keep on repeating it in what I assume is meant to be read in a sarcastic and disparaging tone, it doesn't make it more evil.

Redstone said:

---

Puberty blockers as "treatment."

CHILDREN.

Here we are.

Good day, gentlemen.

---

Yes. They are nothing new in terms of treating children with other conditions as well. I'm sorry this upsets you. I am grateful our friends have chosen their son's well-being over their own prejudices. I know it was a struggle for them, as they are a conservative military family, but their support has been affirmed by the tremendous improvement their son has seen in his mental health.

Redstone,

Let me ask you this. You are incredulous that delaying the onset of puberty and, eventually, hormone therapy, are seen as "treatment" for gender dysphoria. Or that they're the recognized and accepted path trans youth. But...and here me out...what if it works? Isn't the point to find an effective "treatment"? If one is found, and know that not all trans people even start hormones, then isn't that what matters here? Why be upset about an effective treatment?

Redstone said:

---

You are incredulous that a very high percentage of such (real, absolutely deserving of care and sympathy) struggles resolve by some strong measure, including fully, by young adulthood.

This is well established.

Should we keep trading links? I can, but we may have run our course.

---

I know what misrepresented study you're referring to. But you didn't answer my question.

Redstone said:

---

Pubertal blockade has implications for fertility preservation, transgender surgical care and psychosocial health….
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41585-020-0372-2?proof=t

Maybe you are correct about no / little impact.
I don't think so, and it's much more of an open question than you stated.

---

I don't think this study is saying what you think it is.

Quote:

---

Blockade of puberty does affect future fertility options for transgender adults treated early in adolescence and patients should be counselled regarding the options available to them for future fertility.

---

Yes, puberty blockers does affect future fertility options for trans adults because they clearly stay on them and, subsequently begin hormone treatment. If they stop the blockers, without HRT, they will begin the puberty process.

One interesting note in the study:

Quote:

---

When GnRH agonists are used successfully, they prevent development of secondary sexual characteristics18 and have been shown to lead to important improvements in the mental health of transgender youth treated19,20 and lower odds of lifetime suicidal ideation (adjusted OR 0.3; 95% CI 0.20.6)21 (Fig. 1).

---

Improved mental health and lower odds of lifetime suicidal ideation. Yay!

Especially if, as I correctly stated, there are implications for reproduction?

Joe Boudain said:

---

Oh yeah man, call us out but not the guy with the false dichotomy if we don't let kids neuter themselves we are okay with them killing themselves.

---

Taliban Joe, I only said that to mock the hysteria Redstone began displaying.

Redstone said:

---

Wrong.

Wikipedia (that right-wing rag?) says:

"According to prospective studies, the majority of children diagnosed with gender dysphoria cease to desire to be the other sex by puberty, with most growing up to identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, with or without therapeutic intervention. "
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_dysphoria_in_children

---

You love your troubled studies:

The Controversial Research on 'Desistance' in Transgender Youth

Quote:

---

One reason many researchers believe it's unnecessary to delay the social transition of a child is that they don't think the research on desistance is valid. In other words, they think the number of children who "grow out of" their transgender identity has been vastly overblown.

This school of thought holds that because the criteria for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria (previously called gender identity disorder) was less stringent in the past, the earlier desistance studies included a large cohort of children who today would not be diagnosed with gender dysphoria, gay boys who may have been experimenting with different ways of expressing gender but who were never really transgender in the first place.

"The methodology of those studies is very flawed, because they didn't study gender identity," said Diane Ehrensaft, director of mental health at UCSF's Child and Adolescent Gender Clinic. "Those desistors were, a good majority of them, simply proto-gay boys whose parents were upset because they were boys wearing dresses. They were brought to the clinics because they weren't fitting gender norms."

---

Quote:

---

In Amsterdam, clinicians at the Center of Expertise on Gender Dysphoria are much more cautious about recommending social transitions because of the statistics on desistance. Thomas Steensma, a researcher and clinician at the center, acknowledges these studies probably included some kids who would not be diagnosed with gender dysphoria today. Nevertheless, despite the problems with the way they classified children, "the only evidence I have from studies and reports in the literature ... is that not all transgender children will persist in their transgender identity," Steensma said.

In 2013, Steensma co-authored an oft-cited study that examined 127 adolescents, all of whom had displayed various levels of gender dysphoria as children. The researchers found that 80 of the children had desisted by the ages of 15 and 16. That works out to 63 percent of kids who basically stopped being transgender -- a lower rate than in previous studies, but still a majority.

Some clinicians criticize this study, however, on methodological grounds, because the researchers defined anyone who did not return to their clinic as desisting. Fifty-two of the children classified as desistors or their parents did send back questionnaires showing the subjects' present lack of gender dysphoria. But 28 neither responded nor could be tracked down.

"You can't do that in scientific studies," Ehrensaft said. "You have to have your subjects in front of you and know who they are. You can't just assume somebody is in a category because you don't see them anymore."

In addition, 38 of the 127 kids were originally designated "subthreshold" for gender identity disorder, meaning they did not fulfill all the criteria for meeting the official diagnosis.

---

Redstone said:

---

It's all here in black and white, folks.

Although a solid majority of children resolve, let's pump them with hormones and puberty blockers.

You know, for their health.

---

Problems with your study is in my previous post.

Redstone said:

---

Once again you miss the point entirely.

"stay on them"

Oh. So there is an impact, exactly as I said, and is easily verifiable.

---

That's not what you said. Your initial comment was:

Quote:

---

Advocate for (sterilizing, by the way) puberty blockers as "treatment" for …. children? For minors?

---

You said nothing about "stay on them". You keep trying to change your statement when flaws are pointed out. Yes, trans adults who started on puberty blockers and then went to hormones are going to be infertile. Nobody ever denied that. It's the delaying of puberty, and then hormone therapy that is the cause of this.

There are kids who have precocious puberty that are not infertile. They use the same blockers as trans kids.

Again, please answer my question about why you have a problem with a treatment if it works.

Redstone,

Let me ask you this again. You are incredulous that delaying the onset of puberty and, eventually, hormone therapy, are seen as "treatment" for gender dysphoria. Or that they're the recognized and accepted path trans youth. But...and here me out...what if it works? Isn't the point to find an effective "treatment"? If one is found, and know that not all trans people even start hormones, then isn't that what matters here? Why be upset about an effective treatment?

Redstone said:

---

Meeting at 5 and need to be on desktop. I'll be back.

---

Okay. If you can't manage to answer my question, though, don't bother. I cannot continue with someone who is engaging dishonestly and is simply looking to argue. That's when it ceases to be a discussion, and just becomes vain ramblings.

Redstone said:

---

Meeting at 5 and need to be on desktop. I'll be back.

Edit: can't let this pass.
The "treatment" advocated to youth is sterilizing. Blockers and hormones. Related, blockers do have a physical and psychological impact, often to the very negative, as we have many testimonies of.
Not hard to understand.
And very evil to peddle to children.

---

The study YOU shared points to the improvement to mental health and decrease in lifetime suicidal ideation.

So put kids through psychological harm just so they can breed later in life? Goodness. Thankfully this is not, nor should it be, your choice. Thankfully there are doctors who care enough about treating their patients in ways that are effective.

Joe Boudain said:

---

I've always maintained that the end goal of the morally relativist left is to degrade children, as they are the closest to Sinlessness, i.e Christ, that you can get as humans.

Much as Satan worshippers will steal the Euchariat to conduct a black mass, so will his agents disfigure, maim, and abuse children.

---

You respect and want to emulate the Taliban. Don't talk to us about degrading people.