Transgender people who start hormones as teenagers rather than adults 'have better mental health’

The easy option is to stop posting to avoid the ire. But that is the cowards way out. Trans people don't have the choice to opt out, so why should their supporters?

It isn't disingenuous JA.

This is my thought process:

1) Sympathetic article.
2) Interesting (most important, for me).
3) Worthy of consideration.
4) To some slight degree challenges the gender critical narrative.

That's it. I'm sympathetic to the trans community. I'm anti gender critical. I'm offering an alternative perspective to the mainstream one on GN which is TWA not W. No intervention with teenagers. Women only spaces.

Trans support is in the minority on GN. But we're here.

gagajo I refuse to have an argument. I posted an interesting article, that's all

I fear you are being disingenuous, gagajo. Questioning the validity of an article which quotes research second-hand isn’t hostility. It’s actually irrelevant that the article is about hormone treatment for transgender teenagers. We would be justified in raising concerns about any article about any subject which contained dubious assertions. That’s how science works. It’s fact-based, not values-based.
If you don’t like other posters disagreeing with articles you quote, there’s an obvious solution.

Doodledog

I wasn't being unkind - it's just that several people have had problems understanding your post, so reposting it and saying that you have explained yourself clearly is not going to help, really.

Whatever you were getting at, suggesting that people are ridiculous if they don't agree is not really polite, is it?

No suggesting people are ridiculous if they do not agree on something is not polite.

But it was not me who said it if you read back.

GagaJo

Doodledog, I refuse to have an argument. I posted an interesting article, that's all. No cut and thrust from me unfortunately. I'm aware that makes me boring/disappointing. Story of my life!

Mollygo, plenty of statistics available online. Take your pick. Some show lower levels, some show higher. I found some on Google.

I asked for the source of the 1 in 4 or 80% which was the basis of the claim made in this thread.
GJ’s response, plenty of statistics available online. Take your pick Some show lower levels, some show higher.
Is that really her basis for a reasonable discussion about anything, whether it’s a serious as suicide or as trivial as whether or not she is boring/disappointing?

I wasn't being unkind - it's just that several people have had problems understanding your post, so reposting it and saying that you have explained yourself clearly is not going to help, really.

Whatever you were getting at, suggesting that people are ridiculous if they don't agree is not really polite, is it?

I'm sorry you feel that way doodledog

I do my very best to be patient, polite, clear and consise while putting my views across and explaining them.

Sorry, VS, but you have not explained very clearly - I for one am no wiser than I was. Repeating yourself, or quoting what was incomprehensible the first time is not going to make anyone understand it second time round.

In any case, it seems to me that unless people buy into what is suggested by a dubious survey and some random stats from Google, they are either 'ridiculous' or part of an 'orchestrated attempt to silence transpeople', and apparently this applies on any thread on the topic. Asking for clarification is perceived as a 'demand', and pointing out when words are being twisted is 'bickering', so there is no room for debate or discussion as I understand the terms. In any debate there has to be a chance for all 'sides' to make their case, and be questioned on any anomalies, so that they can make themselves clear. Deciding that questions are demands, and that having a different point of view is 'hostile' does not allow for anything beyond the presentation of an article that has to be accepted at face value.

I know that a lot of people stay away from these threads, and have always tried to be welcoming to new voices, but to be honest this one has encapsulated their reasons, and I can't say I blame them.

Of course you're not responsible "for others reading comprehension" VioletSky, only your own.

Seasidelass That's not true. I am not responsible for others reading comprehension and I have explained very clearly what I thought was being asked of me.

I do not sit on gransnet and I live in a busy household. I keep up the best I can.

Are you saying people shouldn't be allowed to talk about concerns because I find that really worrying to be honest.

Ah yes, from a post from Smileless which I suggested earlier you may have miss understood and it appears you have, or you have not read all of the posts on this discussion.

There have been posts accusing others of wanting to silence trans support because others are voicing their concerns about the welfare of young people. It is that that is being referred too as ridiculous.

Oh dear, I've done it again Smileless.

Surely in a matter as important as this, it’s vital to question the reliability of all studies/surveys and to view any findings with disinterested enquiry.

It’s not argument in the sense of two opposing views but a question of academic medical rigour.

After all there have been many examples in the past where commercial interests have allowed harmful treatments to be given. And there is a vast commercial advantage to drug companies in hormone treatment.

That isn’t being transphobic. It is being cynical I’m afraid. I would always ‘follow the money” before I accepted the findings of any medical study.

I completely agree Galaxy which is the problem I have with some of the so called statistical evidence offered here.

It isn't high quality IMO as it raises more questions than it answers.

It is here, I have already explained why its not ridiculous to say why some concerns (which I have highlighted because I understand they are indeed concerns) effectively silences trans people or their support. You just have to look at it from a different angle.

I hope this helps and I hope people will consider my explanation which was actually the important bit

And your response to my question is one way of not answering what's been asked VioleSky, and I must say you do that rather a lot.

People take the time to read your posts, to consider what you have said and then if needed, ask questions for clarification which you invariably refuse to answer or give the appearance of answering when you're not answering at all.

Very frustrating and not what one expects on discussion forums.

But the 2020 research is saying something different which is why a number of countries have changed their approach. I think asking for high quality evidence based care for those who experience gender dysphoria is what we should be doing.

There is nothing ridiculous about pointing this out, it's the truth, you just have to look at it
from a different angle

vs I just don't understand why you keep using the words there is nothing ridiculous about this I've read every post on this thread and cannot find any single poster who has said that anything about transgender issues is ridiculous and inferring that they do, from either side of the debate, simply incurs contentiousness and has to be challenged. No one treats this matter with levity; no one denies that, for the young people involved, it's a long, painful and difficult path for them to travel. Ridiculous it is not. And no one ever said it was.

That's one way to disregard what I have said seasidelass

errata 'not in her mid 30s' - NOW in her mid 30s

But who said it was ridiculous for pointing this out VioletSky? I haven't seen anyone do so so share your confusion Chewbacca.

Gagajo mentioned up to 5 years to wait for the process to even begin.
That's 5 years of not being heard and supported by professionals. 5 years of a growing changing body becoming more and more unrecognisable to the person inhabiting it.

The reasearch clearly states how that is affecting mental health and how negative that impact can be for those waiting too long to transition.

Some concerns remain towards those who may eventually regret transition even if that is the vast minority.

The logical outcome of that is that some concern lies with how the ability to transition impacts on cisgender rather than how the ability to transition impacts on transgender.

So that silences trans people as it realistically puts cisgender people first

I have explained as clearly as I can because I want people to understand.

There is nothing ridiculous about pointing this out, it's the truth, you just have to look at it from a different angle

If comments here or elsewhere call out what they feel is missing from ongoing research rather than address the very real concerns that have been highlighted....
Then:
Of course it's not ridiculous to question why that may be happening and what impact that has on trans people themselves who already must face many hurdles to be their authentic selves.

What does this mean? Is it alluding to something that's been said on this thread thus far? If so, please could vs or anyone else, explain for me please as I'm utterly perplexed.

No worries Seasidelass.

I don't understand your post VioletSky. Pointing out what is felt is missing from the research on this topic is, for those doing so a "very real" concern and one which I share.

I haven't seen anyone say what you've put in your second paragraph. I may be wrong, but if you're referring to the post from Smileless I think you have miss understood what she said.

My apologies if I have 'spoken' for you Smileless.