Great article, Steve, as always, and I must say, I greatly admire your writing even when I find myself in disagreement with it. Perhaps we can chalk it up to differences in risk tolerance, but this is one part I take issue with:
"The argument you're making could have just as easily been applied to smoking before people realised how harmfu…
Great article, Steve, as always, and I must say, I greatly admire your writing even when I find myself in disagreement with it. Perhaps we can chalk it up to differences in risk tolerance, but this is one part I take issue with:
"The argument you're making could have just as easily been applied to smoking before people realised how harmful it is, or lobotomies before people realised how harmful they were, or heck, even gay people who voluntarily submitted to conversion therapy at Christian camps because they thought it would "cure" them."
The problem is two-fold.
With this logic, we smite any possible progress based on the yet-unempirical possibility of future risk. I find the same problem with the people who seem eager to see genocide in Palestine so they can be proven right as they banged the drum in the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attacks on Israel about a *possible* future threat (genocide, ethnic cleansing, take your pick) that had not yet happened. This is like a collective anxiety disorder when we ignore truly grave events and prefer to focus on potential future threats yet to unfold. To do this with medicine and science, both of which imply a substantial degree of experimentation, is to strangle them both where they stand. Note: this does not mean that anything goes, it's merely a call for at least reasonable empirical grounds for our perceived threats.
The other one, well, I'm just going to have to draw from experience on. When I was a kid, I was diagnosed with ADHD. A lot of my Millennial peers were, too. When we grew up, we had quite different interpretations of the value of treating children with medications, even stimulants. I found value in science and reason (though I readily admit the limits of both). I subsequently saw a specialist and was later diagnosed again as an adult. My friends didn't always have the same experience. Many of them went down anti-science and anti-reason conspiracy theory rabbit holes and wound up fiercely bemoaning being drugged as children. They felt it was a violation of their human rights.
So, who has the moral upper hand, here? The answer is neither because it's not a black-and-white question. And either way you go, someone loses out. Kids who need treatment don't get it OR kids are treated who might not need it. I'll only speak for my own experiences here, as a soon-to-be-forty-year-old adult, I look back and part of me wishes my treatment would've been more comprehensive.
I'll readily admit that ADHD drugs and puberty blockers are nowhere near the same. Here's my stance: such judgments should be left up to the individuals in question and their medical staff. Not me, not politicians, not pop singers. Sure, everyone can have an opinion. But, my rather libertarian view here is there are truly no good or bad drugs, only ones that are misused and abused. To criticize an inert, inanimate drug is nonsensical and doing so is partially inextricable from criticizing *everyone* who takes that drug. To criticize ADHD meds is to say that people should not be taking them, which grinds my gears whenever I hear it. So, I can understand the sentiment of the people who are frustrated whenever someone (who usually don't understand that ADHD is 70%+ heritable) spouts off about the horrors of ADHD meds.
This isn't ideology. It's just consistency. I hold the same with all drugs except antibiotics, which we must fear losing their potency in the near future, so there's a collective externalization to factor in.
"I'll readily admit that ADHD drugs and puberty blockers are nowhere near the same"
Right, but this is the point. If you're taking the question of risk seriously, you can't just hold the same view with all drugs. Because some drugs are very different to others in their effects and long-term implications.
Criticising a drug isn't necessarily to say that people shouldn't be taking it or that it should be banned. It's usually to say that the safeguards for that drug aren't sufficient given the aforementioned effects and long-term implications. I'm not sure what these implications for ADHD drugs, so no comment there. But I'm not inclined to just hand over responsibility to the pharmaceutical industry and patients because one is motivated by profit and the other is hampered by fear and a lack of objectivity.
Again, lobotomies, thalidomide, silicone implants, these were all safe until they weren't.
So I have no problem with ongoing conversations, in the public and private spheres, about medications. This doesn't need to stand in the way of medical progress at all as far as I can see. It's exceedingly rare that a medication is banned as a result of these conversation. And on those rare occasions, it's because of a clearly demonstrated harm.
p.s. Drugs aren't inert. If they were, they'd be homeopathic remedies 😁
A medication needn't be banned, only shamed sufficiently to have profound effects. Case in point: prescription opiates, which only about 7% of people become hooked on, which also tracks slightly higher than the 5% of people who become alcoholics. Take a look at opiate prescriptions between 2008 and 2017 here:
Doctors stopped prescribing opioids because of so much media noise about the "opioid crisis" and what happened next was all-too predictable—take a look at fentanyl overdoses.
This is really interesting, but it's hard to draw a causal link here. Opioid prescriptions were rising during the same period fentanyl overdoses were flat. And overdoses didn't start to spike until 2015, long after opioid prescriptions were way down. I'm not saying there can't be a causal relationship there, but it's not clear.
That said, yes, addiction and abuse of other, more dangerous drugs are among the risks and long-term implications I'm talking about. I think it's absolutely right that there was a conversation about opioid addiction. Don't you? 7% isn't nothing. But I also think it should be framed in a way that makes it clear that in most cases, opioids aren't addictive. Basically, I'm advocating a clear eyed analysis of the costs and benefits. That's not happening with puberty blockers.
"This is really interesting, but it's hard to draw a causal link here. Opioid prescriptions were rising during the same period fentanyl overdoses were flat. And overdoses didn't start to spike until 2015, long after opioid prescriptions were way down. I'm not saying there can't be a causal relationship there, but it's not clear."
Sure, but that's true of literally everything epidemiological (which cannot establish causation)—including any discussion about puberty blockers.
"I think it's absolutely right that there was a conversation about opioid addiction. Don't you?"
I think it would've been had it been had honestly. But it was not. Which makes me wonder if we're capable of honest dialogue any longer in our (social) media ecosystem. The only reason I know all this is because it's my own upcoming article (I've researched for a year).
The thing is, almost no one is saying, "Yes, opiates are addictive, but there's only a 7% chance you'll become hooked."
7% isn't nothing, you're right, but it's just like (and often less than) any other side effect of any other drug, side effects that are usually minuscule-print footnotes.
So why the glaring discrepancy?
We don't have a "vaccine side effect crisis," a "peanut butter allergy crisis," or a "this psoriasis drug can cause you to poop water and drop-dead *crisis*" because a small number of people experience negative effects. We don't attach *crisis* to any other side effect except addiction, including ones that kill people.
190,000 people died from OxyContin between 1999 and 2017. Sounds scary and all, but 643,826 people died from car accidents during the same period, dwarfing OxyContin deaths. Do we have a driving *crisis* now?
"I'm advocating a clear-eyed analysis of the costs and benefits. That's not happening with puberty blockers."
I'm all for a clear-eyed analysis of the costs and benefits. I also realize it's not my business if people want to take them despite (reasonable) risks identified. The same principle as above applies here.
"Right, but this is the point. If you're taking the question of risk seriously, you can't just hold the same view with all drugs. Because some drugs are very different to others in their effects and long-term implications."
I absolutely can and I just did with the fundamental crux of the moral logic: that these choices should be left up to either the consumers themselves, if they're adults, or medical practitioners with far superior knowledge than laypersons, if they can't make those choices for themselves as consenting adults. We should caution people that some drugs are more dangerous than others—benzodiazepines don't carry the same risks as Tylenol. But to make that choice for them or to even shame their choice to take or not take one or the other is overstepping our boundaries.
I'm going to riff on this for a second because I think it's all part of the same issue that ties in with your original post. Today, we've woken up with these technologies that have granted us unprecedented access into other people's lives. With that has come an assumption most people make that they're entitled to be the judge of other people's lives. To them, I say, leave me alone and I'll suffer the consequences of my own actions, thank you very much.
"Drugs aren't inert. If they were, they'd be homeopathic remedies"
Drugs not taken are certainly inert. ;)
"Criticising a drug isn't necessarily to say that people shouldn't be taking it or that it should be banned. It's usually to say that the safeguards for that drug aren't sufficient given the aforementioned effects and long-term implications. I'm not sure what these implications for ADHD drugs, so no comment there. But I'm not inclined to just hand over responsibility to the pharmaceutical industry and patients because one is motivated by profit and the other is hampered by fear and a lack of objectivity."
I take issue with this entire premise, largely because our fear of drugs is born out of edge cases algorithmically catapulted to the top of the attention-for-money social media heap. Take addiction to prescribed drugs for instance. We all it an "opioid crisis" but per the NIH's data, the risk of becoming addicted to mind-altering drugs is a wimpy 5%.
That 5% gets a whole lot of media attention in the USA because fear sells. Millions of people are walking around with silicone implants and are doing fine, so declaring them "unsafe" isn't accurate. Which brings me back to my original point: with all medical progress, it's easy to find those edge cases and whip up a panic. Hell, we can even do this with things that are patently benign (carbs, anyone?).
There is, of course, a simple solution to all of this.
Don't like drugs? Don't take them. Don't like abortions? Don't get them. Don't like guns? Don't buy them.
"I take issue with this entire premise, largely because our fear of drugs is born out of edge cases algorithmically catapulted to the top of the attention-for-money social media heap. Take addiction to prescribed drugs for instance."
Again, this is why you can't treat all drugs as if they're the same. Concerns about puberty blockers aren't about edge cases. They're about solid data that says they're unnecessary in the majority of cases and make children far more likely to medically transition (with all the health consequences that entails). There aren't many drugs I can think of that affect people in this way. And therefore, they should be considered on their own merits.
According to Wikipedia, around 10,000 people were affected by thalidomide. Considering that it was sold worldwide, for around 5 years, I'm betting that the percentage of people affected was fairly low. But we didn't let expectant mothers just roll the dice, because their decision would affect their kid.
As for, "if you don't like drugs, don't take them..." the implications of this get pretty bad pretty quickly, no? By this logic should we legalise all drugs, accepting the cost to public health and to crime and to society at large? Or guns, okay, I don't like guns, so I won't buy them. Does that decision keep me safe from other lunatics who *do* buy them? Do we, perhaps, need *some* guardrails here?
"Again, this is why you can't treat all drugs as if they're the same. Concerns about puberty blockers aren't about edge cases. They're about solid data that says they're unnecessary in the majority of cases and make children far more likely to medically transition (with all the health consequences that entails). There aren't many drugs I can think of that affect people in this way. And therefore, they should be considered on their own merits."
I'm interested in seeing this data.
"But we didn't let expectant mothers just roll the dice, because their decision would affect their kid."
No certainly not if we have a reasonable alternative. But I don't think there is a one-to-one alternative to opiates and possibly puberty blockers, too, but admittedly, I haven't investigated that far. It's more your specialty than mine.
"Do we, perhaps, need *some* guardrails here?"
Sure, make people wait a month to get the gun and conduct background checks. Make people have to be 18 to drink alcohol or smoke weed. I'm in favor of all these things. But it doesn't make these things "bad" they just are.
"Sure, make people wait a month to get the gun and conduct background checks. Make people have to be 18 to drink alcohol or smoke weed. I'm in favor of all these things. But it doesn't make these things "bad" they just are."
Right, again, I'm not saying that puberty blockers are bad and certainly not that transition is bad. Puberty blockers have been used for years for precocious puberty with well documented pros and cons. Transition is life-changingly positive for many people with gender dysphoria.
The issue is, trans activism in its current form, is hellbent on removing pretty much all guardrails, whether for kids, or for dishonest men who claim to be women.
I'm constantly baffled why nobody asks why we weren't talking about these issues 20 years ago. Well, it's because men couldn't legally become women simply by saying so. It's because people weren't tying to obfuscate obvious realities about biological sex. It's because people who transitioned did so to ease their medically diagnosed dysphoria, not to be edgy men in dresses deconstructing gender or because they were "transmaxxing (https://www.reddit.com/r/transmaxxing/comments/16y6c66/should_i_transmaxx/)" or because they were mentally ill and had been told by fetishists online that transitioning would fix them.
As you say, people need to be 18 before they drink alcohol or smoke weed or get a tattoo. But potentially making yourself infertile or chopping off body parts shouldn't require the same care?
Sorry, just realised that I hadn't provided this. Here's a link to a pretty good round up of all the studies (complete with links to the original papers) demonstrating that when children are allowed to go through their natural puberty without medicalisation, most of them are no longer dysphoric but usually just gay adults.
The optimistic interpretation of this second set of data is that puberty blockers are incredibly carefully prescribed and all the kids taking them are genuinely trans and go on to medically transition.
But given the shifts in policy in the Scandinavian countries and France, as well as the shutdown of the Tavistock gender clinic in England following findings of widespread negligence, I think a more realistic interpretation is that puberty blockers aren't carefully prescribed at all, but act as a gateway or first step on a transition pathway that few step off. Angst about puberty is, after all, nothing new.
Governments pass laws to govern the behavior of people. Propaganda to attain by-in from the public so it can be seen as the result of democracy is ubiquitous. What or who defends minority opinion and individuals from the tyranny of democracy. People petition government to impose their views on those who don't hold them. "But I don't want you to [cause goes here] for the good of society!"
100%, Dave. Spot on. Now, there’s an argument to be made that there are clear cases where one party harms another. But harming yourself is, by definition, never one of those cases. There’s also a difference between supporting something like healthcare finance and legislating individual morality. We pool money for healthcare with health insurance. That’s different from telling someone they can’t do something because we feel it’s morally objectionable or because we worry about the (usually extremely minor) risk it will hurt them.
"But harming yourself is, by definition, never one of those cases."
Except when you're a child.
If we were talking about adults, we'd basically be in 100% agreement. I'm not saying a word about cross-sex hormones or any other surgical options for adults because, as you say, adults should be free to suffer the consequences of their own actions.
But children are in a particularly vulnerable situation, especially with regards to this treatment. All the data say that at least 80% of children won't need these drugs if they go through their natural puberty. While around 95% of children will become lifelong medical patients if they're not allowed to go through their natural puberty.
So if you're prescribing these medications, you'd better have solid data-backed reasoning for doing so. And as far as I can see, the opposite is the case. Again, every country that has done a systemic review of puberty blockers has based or severely curtailed them. As well as shutting down some of the irresponsible gender clinics catering to children.
Great article, Steve, as always, and I must say, I greatly admire your writing even when I find myself in disagreement with it. Perhaps we can chalk it up to differences in risk tolerance, but this is one part I take issue with:
"The argument you're making could have just as easily been applied to smoking before people realised how harmful it is, or lobotomies before people realised how harmful they were, or heck, even gay people who voluntarily submitted to conversion therapy at Christian camps because they thought it would "cure" them."
The problem is two-fold.
With this logic, we smite any possible progress based on the yet-unempirical possibility of future risk. I find the same problem with the people who seem eager to see genocide in Palestine so they can be proven right as they banged the drum in the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attacks on Israel about a *possible* future threat (genocide, ethnic cleansing, take your pick) that had not yet happened. This is like a collective anxiety disorder when we ignore truly grave events and prefer to focus on potential future threats yet to unfold. To do this with medicine and science, both of which imply a substantial degree of experimentation, is to strangle them both where they stand. Note: this does not mean that anything goes, it's merely a call for at least reasonable empirical grounds for our perceived threats.
The other one, well, I'm just going to have to draw from experience on. When I was a kid, I was diagnosed with ADHD. A lot of my Millennial peers were, too. When we grew up, we had quite different interpretations of the value of treating children with medications, even stimulants. I found value in science and reason (though I readily admit the limits of both). I subsequently saw a specialist and was later diagnosed again as an adult. My friends didn't always have the same experience. Many of them went down anti-science and anti-reason conspiracy theory rabbit holes and wound up fiercely bemoaning being drugged as children. They felt it was a violation of their human rights.
So, who has the moral upper hand, here? The answer is neither because it's not a black-and-white question. And either way you go, someone loses out. Kids who need treatment don't get it OR kids are treated who might not need it. I'll only speak for my own experiences here, as a soon-to-be-forty-year-old adult, I look back and part of me wishes my treatment would've been more comprehensive.
I'll readily admit that ADHD drugs and puberty blockers are nowhere near the same. Here's my stance: such judgments should be left up to the individuals in question and their medical staff. Not me, not politicians, not pop singers. Sure, everyone can have an opinion. But, my rather libertarian view here is there are truly no good or bad drugs, only ones that are misused and abused. To criticize an inert, inanimate drug is nonsensical and doing so is partially inextricable from criticizing *everyone* who takes that drug. To criticize ADHD meds is to say that people should not be taking them, which grinds my gears whenever I hear it. So, I can understand the sentiment of the people who are frustrated whenever someone (who usually don't understand that ADHD is 70%+ heritable) spouts off about the horrors of ADHD meds.
This isn't ideology. It's just consistency. I hold the same with all drugs except antibiotics, which we must fear losing their potency in the near future, so there's a collective externalization to factor in.
"I'll readily admit that ADHD drugs and puberty blockers are nowhere near the same"
Right, but this is the point. If you're taking the question of risk seriously, you can't just hold the same view with all drugs. Because some drugs are very different to others in their effects and long-term implications.
Criticising a drug isn't necessarily to say that people shouldn't be taking it or that it should be banned. It's usually to say that the safeguards for that drug aren't sufficient given the aforementioned effects and long-term implications. I'm not sure what these implications for ADHD drugs, so no comment there. But I'm not inclined to just hand over responsibility to the pharmaceutical industry and patients because one is motivated by profit and the other is hampered by fear and a lack of objectivity.
Again, lobotomies, thalidomide, silicone implants, these were all safe until they weren't.
So I have no problem with ongoing conversations, in the public and private spheres, about medications. This doesn't need to stand in the way of medical progress at all as far as I can see. It's exceedingly rare that a medication is banned as a result of these conversation. And on those rare occasions, it's because of a clearly demonstrated harm.
p.s. Drugs aren't inert. If they were, they'd be homeopathic remedies 😁
A medication needn't be banned, only shamed sufficiently to have profound effects. Case in point: prescription opiates, which only about 7% of people become hooked on, which also tracks slightly higher than the 5% of people who become alcoholics. Take a look at opiate prescriptions between 2008 and 2017 here:
https://healthcostinstitute.org/images/easyblog_articles/314/b2ap3_large_Figure-1-Change-in-Us_20190715-165510_1.png
Doctors stopped prescribing opioids because of so much media noise about the "opioid crisis" and what happened next was all-too predictable—take a look at fentanyl overdoses.
https://ca-times.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/e9b14ea/2147483647/strip/true/crop/1280x720+0+0/resize/840x473!/quality/90/?url=https:%2F%2Fcalifornia-times-brightspot.s3.amazonaws.com%2F32%2Fd0%2Fd879cb32d373e82e04cfaccaa86c%2Fla-1553140571-pob09qlwxw-snap-image
No bans need apply.
This is really interesting, but it's hard to draw a causal link here. Opioid prescriptions were rising during the same period fentanyl overdoses were flat. And overdoses didn't start to spike until 2015, long after opioid prescriptions were way down. I'm not saying there can't be a causal relationship there, but it's not clear.
That said, yes, addiction and abuse of other, more dangerous drugs are among the risks and long-term implications I'm talking about. I think it's absolutely right that there was a conversation about opioid addiction. Don't you? 7% isn't nothing. But I also think it should be framed in a way that makes it clear that in most cases, opioids aren't addictive. Basically, I'm advocating a clear eyed analysis of the costs and benefits. That's not happening with puberty blockers.
"This is really interesting, but it's hard to draw a causal link here. Opioid prescriptions were rising during the same period fentanyl overdoses were flat. And overdoses didn't start to spike until 2015, long after opioid prescriptions were way down. I'm not saying there can't be a causal relationship there, but it's not clear."
Sure, but that's true of literally everything epidemiological (which cannot establish causation)—including any discussion about puberty blockers.
"I think it's absolutely right that there was a conversation about opioid addiction. Don't you?"
I think it would've been had it been had honestly. But it was not. Which makes me wonder if we're capable of honest dialogue any longer in our (social) media ecosystem. The only reason I know all this is because it's my own upcoming article (I've researched for a year).
The thing is, almost no one is saying, "Yes, opiates are addictive, but there's only a 7% chance you'll become hooked."
7% isn't nothing, you're right, but it's just like (and often less than) any other side effect of any other drug, side effects that are usually minuscule-print footnotes.
So why the glaring discrepancy?
We don't have a "vaccine side effect crisis," a "peanut butter allergy crisis," or a "this psoriasis drug can cause you to poop water and drop-dead *crisis*" because a small number of people experience negative effects. We don't attach *crisis* to any other side effect except addiction, including ones that kill people.
190,000 people died from OxyContin between 1999 and 2017. Sounds scary and all, but 643,826 people died from car accidents during the same period, dwarfing OxyContin deaths. Do we have a driving *crisis* now?
"I'm advocating a clear-eyed analysis of the costs and benefits. That's not happening with puberty blockers."
I'm all for a clear-eyed analysis of the costs and benefits. I also realize it's not my business if people want to take them despite (reasonable) risks identified. The same principle as above applies here.
"Right, but this is the point. If you're taking the question of risk seriously, you can't just hold the same view with all drugs. Because some drugs are very different to others in their effects and long-term implications."
I absolutely can and I just did with the fundamental crux of the moral logic: that these choices should be left up to either the consumers themselves, if they're adults, or medical practitioners with far superior knowledge than laypersons, if they can't make those choices for themselves as consenting adults. We should caution people that some drugs are more dangerous than others—benzodiazepines don't carry the same risks as Tylenol. But to make that choice for them or to even shame their choice to take or not take one or the other is overstepping our boundaries.
I'm going to riff on this for a second because I think it's all part of the same issue that ties in with your original post. Today, we've woken up with these technologies that have granted us unprecedented access into other people's lives. With that has come an assumption most people make that they're entitled to be the judge of other people's lives. To them, I say, leave me alone and I'll suffer the consequences of my own actions, thank you very much.
"Drugs aren't inert. If they were, they'd be homeopathic remedies"
Drugs not taken are certainly inert. ;)
"Criticising a drug isn't necessarily to say that people shouldn't be taking it or that it should be banned. It's usually to say that the safeguards for that drug aren't sufficient given the aforementioned effects and long-term implications. I'm not sure what these implications for ADHD drugs, so no comment there. But I'm not inclined to just hand over responsibility to the pharmaceutical industry and patients because one is motivated by profit and the other is hampered by fear and a lack of objectivity."
I take issue with this entire premise, largely because our fear of drugs is born out of edge cases algorithmically catapulted to the top of the attention-for-money social media heap. Take addiction to prescribed drugs for instance. We all it an "opioid crisis" but per the NIH's data, the risk of becoming addicted to mind-altering drugs is a wimpy 5%.
That 5% gets a whole lot of media attention in the USA because fear sells. Millions of people are walking around with silicone implants and are doing fine, so declaring them "unsafe" isn't accurate. Which brings me back to my original point: with all medical progress, it's easy to find those edge cases and whip up a panic. Hell, we can even do this with things that are patently benign (carbs, anyone?).
There is, of course, a simple solution to all of this.
Don't like drugs? Don't take them. Don't like abortions? Don't get them. Don't like guns? Don't buy them.
"I take issue with this entire premise, largely because our fear of drugs is born out of edge cases algorithmically catapulted to the top of the attention-for-money social media heap. Take addiction to prescribed drugs for instance."
Again, this is why you can't treat all drugs as if they're the same. Concerns about puberty blockers aren't about edge cases. They're about solid data that says they're unnecessary in the majority of cases and make children far more likely to medically transition (with all the health consequences that entails). There aren't many drugs I can think of that affect people in this way. And therefore, they should be considered on their own merits.
According to Wikipedia, around 10,000 people were affected by thalidomide. Considering that it was sold worldwide, for around 5 years, I'm betting that the percentage of people affected was fairly low. But we didn't let expectant mothers just roll the dice, because their decision would affect their kid.
As for, "if you don't like drugs, don't take them..." the implications of this get pretty bad pretty quickly, no? By this logic should we legalise all drugs, accepting the cost to public health and to crime and to society at large? Or guns, okay, I don't like guns, so I won't buy them. Does that decision keep me safe from other lunatics who *do* buy them? Do we, perhaps, need *some* guardrails here?
"Again, this is why you can't treat all drugs as if they're the same. Concerns about puberty blockers aren't about edge cases. They're about solid data that says they're unnecessary in the majority of cases and make children far more likely to medically transition (with all the health consequences that entails). There aren't many drugs I can think of that affect people in this way. And therefore, they should be considered on their own merits."
I'm interested in seeing this data.
"But we didn't let expectant mothers just roll the dice, because their decision would affect their kid."
No certainly not if we have a reasonable alternative. But I don't think there is a one-to-one alternative to opiates and possibly puberty blockers, too, but admittedly, I haven't investigated that far. It's more your specialty than mine.
"Do we, perhaps, need *some* guardrails here?"
Sure, make people wait a month to get the gun and conduct background checks. Make people have to be 18 to drink alcohol or smoke weed. I'm in favor of all these things. But it doesn't make these things "bad" they just are.
"Sure, make people wait a month to get the gun and conduct background checks. Make people have to be 18 to drink alcohol or smoke weed. I'm in favor of all these things. But it doesn't make these things "bad" they just are."
Right, again, I'm not saying that puberty blockers are bad and certainly not that transition is bad. Puberty blockers have been used for years for precocious puberty with well documented pros and cons. Transition is life-changingly positive for many people with gender dysphoria.
The issue is, trans activism in its current form, is hellbent on removing pretty much all guardrails, whether for kids, or for dishonest men who claim to be women.
I'm constantly baffled why nobody asks why we weren't talking about these issues 20 years ago. Well, it's because men couldn't legally become women simply by saying so. It's because people weren't tying to obfuscate obvious realities about biological sex. It's because people who transitioned did so to ease their medically diagnosed dysphoria, not to be edgy men in dresses deconstructing gender or because they were "transmaxxing (https://www.reddit.com/r/transmaxxing/comments/16y6c66/should_i_transmaxx/)" or because they were mentally ill and had been told by fetishists online that transitioning would fix them.
As you say, people need to be 18 before they drink alcohol or smoke weed or get a tattoo. But potentially making yourself infertile or chopping off body parts shouldn't require the same care?
"I'm interested in seeing this data."
Sorry, just realised that I hadn't provided this. Here's a link to a pretty good round up of all the studies (complete with links to the original papers) demonstrating that when children are allowed to go through their natural puberty without medicalisation, most of them are no longer dysphoric but usually just gay adults.
https://www.transgendertrend.com/children-change-minds/
But when children ARE medicalised, almost all of them go on to transition.
https://segm.org/early-social-gender-transition-persistence
The optimistic interpretation of this second set of data is that puberty blockers are incredibly carefully prescribed and all the kids taking them are genuinely trans and go on to medically transition.
But given the shifts in policy in the Scandinavian countries and France, as well as the shutdown of the Tavistock gender clinic in England following findings of widespread negligence, I think a more realistic interpretation is that puberty blockers aren't carefully prescribed at all, but act as a gateway or first step on a transition pathway that few step off. Angst about puberty is, after all, nothing new.
Governments pass laws to govern the behavior of people. Propaganda to attain by-in from the public so it can be seen as the result of democracy is ubiquitous. What or who defends minority opinion and individuals from the tyranny of democracy. People petition government to impose their views on those who don't hold them. "But I don't want you to [cause goes here] for the good of society!"
100%, Dave. Spot on. Now, there’s an argument to be made that there are clear cases where one party harms another. But harming yourself is, by definition, never one of those cases. There’s also a difference between supporting something like healthcare finance and legislating individual morality. We pool money for healthcare with health insurance. That’s different from telling someone they can’t do something because we feel it’s morally objectionable or because we worry about the (usually extremely minor) risk it will hurt them.
"But harming yourself is, by definition, never one of those cases."
Except when you're a child.
If we were talking about adults, we'd basically be in 100% agreement. I'm not saying a word about cross-sex hormones or any other surgical options for adults because, as you say, adults should be free to suffer the consequences of their own actions.
But children are in a particularly vulnerable situation, especially with regards to this treatment. All the data say that at least 80% of children won't need these drugs if they go through their natural puberty. While around 95% of children will become lifelong medical patients if they're not allowed to go through their natural puberty.
So if you're prescribing these medications, you'd better have solid data-backed reasoning for doing so. And as far as I can see, the opposite is the case. Again, every country that has done a systemic review of puberty blockers has based or severely curtailed them. As well as shutting down some of the irresponsible gender clinics catering to children.