Scotland's under-18s gender clinic pauses puberty blockers
Scotland's under-18s gender clinic pauses puberty blockers
It follows a landmark review of gender services in England which warned of a lack of research.
This stuff is so stupid.
Puberty blockers aren't transitioning, it's pausing until a person is.old enough to decide if they do want to transition. Because not all effects of puberty are reversible with hormone therapy.
But I was over 6 feet tall and needing to shave my face before I was a teenager. Even though I never thought of transitioning, I would have preferred being on puberty blockers so I didn't look old enough to be some of my classmates dads.
And unfortunately early puberty can be a lot more problematic with girls than it was for me.
It just never made sense why so many idiots are mad puberty is being delayed. It's like they want to see a lot of children running around with the bodies of adults and the minds/experience of children...
I’d be curious to see how many people on puberty blockers go through a full transition.
Edit: I googled it after and apparently the number is extraordinarily high, like 98%+
That's the frustrating thing about this whole debate. Everyone with any knowledge knows that puberty blockers are a safe and sensible intervention with "gender questioning" kids. Like it took you maybe 30 seconds to figure this out. There is no ambiguity here. Anyone who says otherwise is being incredibly dishonest
Once again, people with no counterarguments are downvoting a reasonable take
I mean, they did call people with an opposing view 'idiots'.
This makes the comment sound less reasonable, especially to somebody of an opposing view.
Wasn't one of the reasons that the long term effects of puberty blockers weren't known, and therefore caution was advised? I might be misremembering though.
I might be misremembering though
Yep, you are.
They started being prescribed in the 80s for the reason im talking about. For the US they were approved in 1993.
While not prescribed widely, there's been more than enough for a sample size.
When people say "studies need to be done" they're arguing for double blind studies where children might get the real drug, and may get a placebo. And they want the whole sample to be kids who may want to transition.
It's not ethical to do a study like that, and you literally can't do a long-term study like that with this, it's kind of obvious when puberty still happens.... The placebo group should just be kids not on puberty blockers compared to kids on blockers. And those studies exist and have for a long time.
The whole argument is dishonest and designed to make people not familiar with science think they're the reasonable ones.
They're not.
They're just ignorant and opinionated.
Which is the last demographic we should be listening to on scientific research.
For real, they're saying "kids aren't old enough to choose permanent changes for their bodies!
Then force permanent changes onto those kid's bodies.
Puberty blockers are routinely used for early puberty. But this is about delaying what would be normal puberty to much later, i.e. having people with the body of children and the mind of teenagers. Let's not conflate the two.
It's like they want to see a lot of children running around with the bodies of adults and the minds/experience of children...
Are you saying that “children” (teenagers) should not have the “bodies of adults” (teenage bodies)?
...
I honestly don't know what I should ask first...
Why you think a 12 year old is a teenager...
Why you don't understand why someone's mind and body may develop at different rates..
Why you think a teenager and an adults bodies are the same...
Why you don't think a teenager is still a child...
There's just so much shit in that short sentence that makes zero sense. It would be hilarious if not being able to tell the difference between a child an adult wasn't so important for so many reasons.
I've not seen any legitimate refutation of the Cass review so far. The 98% of studies critique was explored and rejected on More or Less: Behind the Stats on Radio4 this week. The programme can probably explain it better than me but essentially the trials of "moderate" quality were not thrown out, and were taken into consideration in the results.
Other criticisms seem more like emotional responses where people complain about the language being overly medicalised. Or similarly, the report reading like something from the past where academia considered homosexuality to be a mental disorder. Personally I don't think the phrasing - even if it is clumsy - can delegitimise the conclusions.