Trans children are being damaged
Scroll to see replies
Oh no, not you again. Everyone, this woman's a troll. Don't even bother.
you don't say...🤔
Original post by connor.beja
Oh no, not you again. Everyone, this woman's a troll. Don't even bother.
So I faked the article in order to troll, or you are just going to ignore it because you don't care about trans kids? Or only care ideologically?
(edited 5 years ago)
Children should not be able to transition at such a young age. End of story.
I don't think children should be allowed to transition at such ages. We don't allow them to make key decisions for their lives until they are adult. Yet, we allow them to make this decision at a very young age.
Original post by bingle21
Kid's just wanna have fun man stop getting in their way
Funnily enough, they are not forced to live there. People apply there.
Original post by Wired_1800
I don't think children should be allowed to transition at such ages. We don't allow them to make key decisions for their lives until they are adult. Yet, we allow them to make a grave decision at a very young age.
That would make you transphobic. Didn't you know, according to trans validation activists, kids as young as 2 or 3 know their 'gender'.
Original post by yudothis
That would make you transphobic. Didn't you know, according to trans validation activists, kids as young as 2 or 3 know their 'gender'.
I don't hate transgender people nor do I want to take any rights away from them. My point is that making serious decisions that are irreversible should be done as adults.
If a 5 year old comes to me and wants to smoke or do drugs, I would not accept that until they are old enough to do so. If a 5 year old wants to transition, I would advise them to follow the process and make the key decision as an adult.
Original post by bingle21
is smoking tobacco really on the same level as doing drugs for you? wow.
Yes, they are. I have zero tolerance to both, but that is not the topic on discussion here.
Original post by Wired_1800
Yes, they are. I have zero tolerance to both, but that is not the topic on discussion here.
wow dude your priorities are pretty f*cked
Original post by bingle21
wow dude your priorities are pretty f*cked
To each his own.
I'm not sure why its so hard just to reach a consensus on trans kids.. there seems to be a very sensible middle ground that most people would be able to accept:
1, any kid who wants to express any gender should be allowed - and others should respect this and treat them as such
2, No kid should be able to consent to unnecessary surgery or medical intervention (hormones) or harmful practices (binding) until the age of 16/18, when they are responsible for their own decisions.
3, If a sufficient body of evidence has been collected to demonstraite that medical intervention on under 16s, is more bennificial then harmful. Rule number 2 can then be lifted.
= we respect trans kids, and their right to express their gender
= we don't allow minors to undertake medical procedures unless they are proven to be necessary and pose little risk
= we do let them undertake the procedures once the research is in, and if it supports them.
= in the mean time, we mitigate against potential risk by only allowing consenting adults(maybe 16, as that's the age of consent) to take it.
---
I think for 80% of people that would be a reasonable policy.. but either side of them you have 10% at the extremes.. 10% who want (in practice) un-restricted medical intervention for any child who self-identifies as needing it (diagnosed by a doctor yes.. a doctor who just asks if you think you are X... I've been through the diagnosis, its not reliable or difficult to just get them to agree your trans)... and 10% who want all children to rigidly stick to sex=gender, no boys in dresses, no girls playing football etc.
But those 10% either side shout the largest, and make it seem like a national arguement.. when really I think most people are pretty in agreement in the middle. Let them do what they want, but don't intervene medically unless its essential, or they are old enough to consent, or it has more longer-term research behind it
1, any kid who wants to express any gender should be allowed - and others should respect this and treat them as such
2, No kid should be able to consent to unnecessary surgery or medical intervention (hormones) or harmful practices (binding) until the age of 16/18, when they are responsible for their own decisions.
3, If a sufficient body of evidence has been collected to demonstraite that medical intervention on under 16s, is more bennificial then harmful. Rule number 2 can then be lifted.
= we respect trans kids, and their right to express their gender
= we don't allow minors to undertake medical procedures unless they are proven to be necessary and pose little risk
= we do let them undertake the procedures once the research is in, and if it supports them.
= in the mean time, we mitigate against potential risk by only allowing consenting adults(maybe 16, as that's the age of consent) to take it.
---
I think for 80% of people that would be a reasonable policy.. but either side of them you have 10% at the extremes.. 10% who want (in practice) un-restricted medical intervention for any child who self-identifies as needing it (diagnosed by a doctor yes.. a doctor who just asks if you think you are X... I've been through the diagnosis, its not reliable or difficult to just get them to agree your trans)... and 10% who want all children to rigidly stick to sex=gender, no boys in dresses, no girls playing football etc.
But those 10% either side shout the largest, and make it seem like a national arguement.. when really I think most people are pretty in agreement in the middle. Let them do what they want, but don't intervene medically unless its essential, or they are old enough to consent, or it has more longer-term research behind it
(edited 5 years ago)
Original post by Wired_1800
I don't hate transgender people nor do I want to take any rights away from them. My point is that making serious decisions that are irreversible should be done as adults.
If a 5 year old comes to me and wants to smoke or do drugs, I would not accept that until they are old enough to do so. If a 5 year old wants to transition, I would advise them to follow the process and make the key decision as an adult.
If a 5 year old comes to me and wants to smoke or do drugs, I would not accept that until they are old enough to do so. If a 5 year old wants to transition, I would advise them to follow the process and make the key decision as an adult.
I agree with you. I am just saying that to trans validation activists, and so-called 'charities' like Mermaids, that makes you transphobic and the perpetrator of 'literal violence'.
Original post by fallen_acorns
I'm not sure why its so hard just to reach a consensus on trans kids.. there seems to be a very sensible middle ground that most people would be able to accept:
1, any kid who wants to express any gender should be allowed - and others should respect this and treat them as such
2, No kid should be able to consent to unnecessary surgery or medical intervention (hormones) or harmful practices (binding) until the age of 16/18, when they are responsible for their own decisions.
3, If a sufficient body of evidence has been collected to demonstraite that medical intervention on under 16s, is more bennificial then harmful. Rule number 2 can then be lifted.
= we respect trans kids, and their right to express their gender
= we don't allow minors to undertake medical procedures unless they are proven to be necessary and pose little risk
= we do let them undertake the procedures once the research is in, and if it supports them.
= in the mean time, we mitigate against potential risk by only allowing consenting adults(maybe 16, as that's the age of consent) to take it.
---
I think for 80% of people that would be a reasonable policy.. but either side of them you have 10% at the extremes.. 10% who want (in practice) un-restricted medical intervention for any child who self-identifies as needing it (diagnosed by a doctor yes.. a doctor who just asks if you think you are X... I've been through the diagnosis, its not reliable or difficult to just get them to agree your trans)... and 10% who want all children to rigidly stick to sex=gender, no boys in dresses, no girls playing football etc.
But those 10% either side shout the largest, and make it seem like a national arguement.. when really I think most people are pretty in agreement in the middle. Let them do what they want, but don't intervene medically unless its essential, or they are old enough to consent, or it has more longer-term research behind it
1, any kid who wants to express any gender should be allowed - and others should respect this and treat them as such
2, No kid should be able to consent to unnecessary surgery or medical intervention (hormones) or harmful practices (binding) until the age of 16/18, when they are responsible for their own decisions.
3, If a sufficient body of evidence has been collected to demonstraite that medical intervention on under 16s, is more bennificial then harmful. Rule number 2 can then be lifted.
= we respect trans kids, and their right to express their gender
= we don't allow minors to undertake medical procedures unless they are proven to be necessary and pose little risk
= we do let them undertake the procedures once the research is in, and if it supports them.
= in the mean time, we mitigate against potential risk by only allowing consenting adults(maybe 16, as that's the age of consent) to take it.
---
I think for 80% of people that would be a reasonable policy.. but either side of them you have 10% at the extremes.. 10% who want (in practice) un-restricted medical intervention for any child who self-identifies as needing it (diagnosed by a doctor yes.. a doctor who just asks if you think you are X... I've been through the diagnosis, its not reliable or difficult to just get them to agree your trans)... and 10% who want all children to rigidly stick to sex=gender, no boys in dresses, no girls playing football etc.
But those 10% either side shout the largest, and make it seem like a national arguement.. when really I think most people are pretty in agreement in the middle. Let them do what they want, but don't intervene medically unless its essential, or they are old enough to consent, or it has more longer-term research behind it
But those are the kind of religious fundamentalist, conservatives. So-called 'terfs' do not favor rigid gender roles...
Original post by fallen_acorns
I'm not sure why its so hard just to reach a consensus on trans kids.. there seems to be a very sensible middle ground that most people would be able to accept:
1, any kid who wants to express any gender should be allowed - and others should respect this and treat them as such
2, No kid should be able to consent to unnecessary surgery or medical intervention (hormones) or harmful practices (binding) until the age of 16/18, when they are responsible for their own decisions.
3, If a sufficient body of evidence has been collected to demonstraite that medical intervention on under 16s, is more bennificial then harmful. Rule number 2 can then be lifted.
= we respect trans kids, and their right to express their gender
= we don't allow minors to undertake medical procedures unless they are proven to be necessary and pose little risk
= we do let them undertake the procedures once the research is in, and if it supports them.
= in the mean time, we mitigate against potential risk by only allowing consenting adults(maybe 16, as that's the age of consent) to take it.
---
I think for 80% of people that would be a reasonable policy.. but either side of them you have 10% at the extremes.. 10% who want (in practice) un-restricted medical intervention for any child who self-identifies as needing it (diagnosed by a doctor yes.. a doctor who just asks if you think you are X... I've been through the diagnosis, its not reliable or difficult to just get them to agree your trans)... and 10% who want all children to rigidly stick to sex=gender, no boys in dresses, no girls playing football etc.
But those 10% either side shout the largest, and make it seem like a national arguement.. when really I think most people are pretty in agreement in the middle. Let them do what they want, but don't intervene medically unless its essential, or they are old enough to consent, or it has more longer-term research behind it
1, any kid who wants to express any gender should be allowed - and others should respect this and treat them as such
2, No kid should be able to consent to unnecessary surgery or medical intervention (hormones) or harmful practices (binding) until the age of 16/18, when they are responsible for their own decisions.
3, If a sufficient body of evidence has been collected to demonstraite that medical intervention on under 16s, is more bennificial then harmful. Rule number 2 can then be lifted.
= we respect trans kids, and their right to express their gender
= we don't allow minors to undertake medical procedures unless they are proven to be necessary and pose little risk
= we do let them undertake the procedures once the research is in, and if it supports them.
= in the mean time, we mitigate against potential risk by only allowing consenting adults(maybe 16, as that's the age of consent) to take it.
---
I think for 80% of people that would be a reasonable policy.. but either side of them you have 10% at the extremes.. 10% who want (in practice) un-restricted medical intervention for any child who self-identifies as needing it (diagnosed by a doctor yes.. a doctor who just asks if you think you are X... I've been through the diagnosis, its not reliable or difficult to just get them to agree your trans)... and 10% who want all children to rigidly stick to sex=gender, no boys in dresses, no girls playing football etc.
But those 10% either side shout the largest, and make it seem like a national arguement.. when really I think most people are pretty in agreement in the middle. Let them do what they want, but don't intervene medically unless its essential, or they are old enough to consent, or it has more longer-term research behind it
I think you have made sound points and I agree with some of them. My issue is your point about “blurring the lines”, i.e. allowing boys to wear dresses etc.
I think kids are not only easily influenced but can believe things that are not true. There are cases I have heard about, where some people have been indoctrinating kids into a transgender mindset. This can then lead to them thinking that they are born in the wrong body.
At such a young age, most boys and girls interact as kids with little or no knowledge of self and the world. I think we should encourage them to live that life. As they get older, they can explore and then make their own decisions.
This transgender topic of early decision making is similar to some conversations around homosexuality, where kids were enocuraged to come out as gay as young as 7, way before they even hit puberty or knew what it really meant to be themselves.
Personally, I dont think people have a problem with adults making their own decisions. However, when we see a kind of indoctrination that happens, you get worried whether the kids are making their decisions or brainwashed to think they are who they are not.
We get upset with religious or political indoctrination of children, but we are excited for them to be indoctrinated into, in some cases, a false sense of identity.
(edited 5 years ago)
Original post by yudothis
I agree with you. I am just saying that to trans validation activists, and so-called 'charities' like Mermaids, that makes you transphobic and the perpetrator of 'literal violence'.
Oh, wow. That is wild.
Original post by Wired_1800
I think you have made sound points and I agree with some of them. My issue is your point about “blurring the lines”, i.e. allowing boys to wear dresses etc.
I think kids are not only easily influenced but can believe things that are not true. There are cases I have heard about, where some people have been indoctrinating kids into a transgender mindset. This can then lead to them thinking that they are born in the wrong body.
At such a young age, most boys and girls interact as kids with little or no knowledge of self and the world. I think we should encourage them to live that life. As they get older, they can explore and then make their own decisions.
This transgender topic of early decision making is similar to some conversations around homosexuality, where kids were enocuraged to come out as gay as young as 7, way before they even hit puberty or knew what it really meant to be themselves.
Personally, I dont think people have a problem with adults making their own decisions. However, when we see a kind of indoctrination that happens, you get worried whether the kids are making their decisions or brainwashed to think they are who they are not.
We get upset with religious or political indoctrination of children, but we are excited for them to be indoctrinated into, in some cases, a false sense of identity.
I think kids are not only easily influenced but can believe things that are not true. There are cases I have heard about, where some people have been indoctrinating kids into a transgender mindset. This can then lead to them thinking that they are born in the wrong body.
At such a young age, most boys and girls interact as kids with little or no knowledge of self and the world. I think we should encourage them to live that life. As they get older, they can explore and then make their own decisions.
This transgender topic of early decision making is similar to some conversations around homosexuality, where kids were enocuraged to come out as gay as young as 7, way before they even hit puberty or knew what it really meant to be themselves.
Personally, I dont think people have a problem with adults making their own decisions. However, when we see a kind of indoctrination that happens, you get worried whether the kids are making their decisions or brainwashed to think they are who they are not.
We get upset with religious or political indoctrination of children, but we are excited for them to be indoctrinated into, in some cases, a false sense of identity.
I think we are on the same page mostly - for me the reason I would still say its ok for boys to wear dresses, is not because I don't think that some kids will be pressured into it/it coudl cause problems.. its more just weighing up the risks assosiated.
If I presume that there are transgender kids (as I believe there are), then I have to weigh the risks of: the negative effects of some non-trans kids being encouraged to act trans.. vs the negative effects actual trans kids being denied the ability to be trans
With medical intervention - for me the risk to non-trans kids who could be influenced, is greater then the harm to trans kids who may miss out... but with just dressing/acting, the risk to non trans kids seems less to me then the harm to trans kids who may miss out
If you see what I mean? Its not that the pressure won't happen, and some kids won't be influenced by friends/family/media into doing something they don't need to - its just that dressing up for a few years poses less risk then medical intervention, so it becomes a more reasonable price to pay to accomodate the genuinly transgender kids.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Children to no longer be prescribed puberty blockers, NHS England confirms
- NHS trust says transgender milk just as good for babies as normal milk
- Trans-inclusive Cambridge colleges
- what is it like being a trans student in first-year shared accommodation?
- I'm scared of coming out as Non-binary
- Never start vaping, says 12-year-old girl with lung damage
- Brianna Ghey killed in quiet village
- Joining Sports at Uni as a trans women
- Am I the only one that wishes I was the opposite gender?
- Help
- Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??
- Is it weird to be 23 and single?
- being non-binary/trans at uni
- LGBTQ+ Q and A Thread
- Boss not letting me take time off Work
- Nursing degree after termination
- Pls help me mark my answer
- Chemistry help urgent Alevel
- Dating as a Trans Person
- King Charles to appear in public at Easter Sunday church service
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
