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

GagaJo

Thanks Trisher. Yes, anti trans cancel culture is alive and thriving.

So hormones are a minor stage (end stage for some) of treatment.

Takes 5 years or so to get to that point anyway. So a 13 year old seeking help would likely be 18 before they accessed hormones.

I will leave it to readers of this thread to decide who is doing the cancelling.

Meanwhile, if people don't get hormones until they are 18, what was the point of your OP?

Thank goodness you have sorted that out. You need to contact those who run services in many countries to tell them they are wrong.

doodledog I have no desire to go back through and highlight issues when I have tried that in the past and really not interested in having an argument about it.

And again which posters are anti trans. Please specify which of my posts are anti trans.

GagaJo

Thanks Trisher. Yes, anti trans cancel culture is alive and thriving.

So hormones are a minor stage (end stage for some) of treatment.

Takes 5 years or so to get to that point anyway. So a 13 year old seeking help would likely be 18 before they accessed hormones.

GJ. Evidence of anti trans cancel culture? Don’t claim that I’m forcing you to answer. I’m just interested in your claim as the cancel culture is most noticeable where it affects those who, whilst accepting that some people are trans, refute the idea that trans have changed sex. I’d be interested to know if trans being cancelled and where the evidence is, particularly as you imply it’s on this thread.
2. Your second and third paragraph don’t match your strap line.
There you are advocating that hormones should be given to teens, ie from 13 onwards, though you didn’t specify.
Now it appears, according to your quoted post, that they won’t be able to access the hormones until they are 18-legally an adult.
Which statement is true?

If a teenager was prescribed anti-depressants wouldn't you think that that was preferable to them attempting suicide? And although the medical profession disagree hugely about their use for adolescents, they are still widely prescribed. They have the possibilty of huge resulting effects if taken for a long period. No drug is 100% safe. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-42917452

Longitudinal studies can only be undertaken when there are sufficient numbers of people willing to participate and as few transpeople will want to abandon hormone treatment simply to prove it is reversible they are unlikely ever to happen. However the experiences of transmen, who abandoned treatment and succeeded in becoming pregnant, dispite medical warnings that their fertility might be compromised, seem to indicate that reversal is possible.

Mollygo

GagaJo

Thanks Trisher. Yes, anti trans cancel culture is alive and thriving.

So hormones are a minor stage (end stage for some) of treatment.

Takes 5 years or so to get to that point anyway. So a 13 year old seeking help would likely be 18 before they accessed hormones.

GJ. Evidence of anti trans cancel culture? Don’t claim that I’m forcing you to answer. I’m just interested in your claim as the cancel culture is most noticeable where it affects those who, whilst accepting that some people are trans, refute the idea that trans have changed sex. I’d be interested to know if trans being cancelled and where the evidence is, particularly as you imply it’s on this thread.
2. Your second and third paragraph don’t match your strap line.
There you are advocating that hormones should be given to teens, ie from 13 onwards, though you didn’t specify.
Now it appears, according to your quoted post, that they won’t be able to access the hormones until they are 18-legally an adult.
Which statement is true?

Mollygo you are still confusing sex with gender.
Woman is a gender term Man is a gender term.
Female is the term for sex. Male is the term for sex.
People who are transgender identify as other than the gender they were designated at birth.

If those running the services were saying oh not sure these anti depressants were a good idea for this group, not quite sure what is going on here, then I would be listening and thinking well this needs looking into. And that wouldnt make me anti those who were depressed.

If a teenager was prescribed anti-depressants wouldn't you think that that was preferable to them attempting suicide?

Of course it is. But that doesn’t mean that if a transgender person is suicidal the appropriate treatment is necessarily hormone therapy. That is for a psychiatrist to decide, and subject to appropriate consent to treatment. It might be actually be anti-depressants!

Galaxy

If those running the services were saying oh not sure these anti depressants were a good idea for this group, not quite sure what is going on here, then I would be listening and thinking well this needs looking into. And that wouldnt make me anti those who were depressed.

That's exactly what is being said about anti-depressants Galaxy. Some practitioners believe they cause suicide attempts in adolescents.
As I said no drug is 100% safe but there is less evidence of harm for hormonal treatment than for anti-depressants, so why all the negativity about hormone treatment and not anti-depressants? Nothing to do with anti-trans opinions then?

GJ I’m quite clear about gender and sex and since woman is an adult human female for all except those who prefer their own definitions I’m not confusing anything.
I’m unsurprised to see that you can’t or won’t answer the issue of your choice of which of your statements is correct or produce evidence of trans being cancelled. Good No Debate tactics in action.

janeainsworth

^If a teenager was prescribed anti-depressants wouldn't you think that that was preferable to them attempting suicide?^

Of course it is. But that doesn’t mean that if a transgender person is suicidal the appropriate treatment is necessarily hormone therapy. That is for a psychiatrist to decide, and subject to appropriate consent to treatment. It might be actually be anti-depressants!

I’m late to this thread, just read the previous 6 pages. Apologies for referring back. VioletSky was asked not to use ciswoman, cisgender as some (including me) find it offensive. VioletSky indicated that because the words are in the Oxford dictionary, that somehow legitimises their use.

The words n****r and cretin amongst many others remain in the dictionary. No one decent would use them, other than in their accurate historical context.

Longitudinal studies can only be undertaken when there are sufficient numbers of people willing to participate and as few transpeople will want to abandon hormone treatment simply to prove it is reversible they are unlikely ever to happen. However the experiences of transmen, who abandoned treatment and succeeded in becoming pregnant, dispite medical warnings that their fertility might be compromised, seem to indicate that reversal is possible.
So no, then? There have been no longitudinal studies. I thought not, partly for the reasons you describe, and partly because it is only relatively recently that large enough numbers of young people have been given hormones, so not enough time has passed for the studies to have taken place.

In that case, we don't know whether, for instance, the instances of adult breast or testicular cancer are higher in those given sex hormones as children. We can't, therefore, be sure that the effects of these hormones are reversible, largely or otherwise.

It is not anti-trans to want to withhold potentially harmful drugs from children - it is a safeguarding matter.

VioletSky

doodledog I have no desire to go back through and highlight issues when I have tried that in the past and really not interested in having an argument about it.

Ok, but in that case there is nothing anyone can do to clear things up. I have consistently given examples when I have seen my words being twisted. The twisters are welcome to explain if they feel that I have been unjust. I very much doubt that they will bother though.

Doodledog

*Longitudinal studies can only be undertaken when there are sufficient numbers of people willing to participate and as few transpeople will want to abandon hormone treatment simply to prove it is reversible they are unlikely ever to happen. However the experiences of transmen, who abandoned treatment and succeeded in becoming pregnant, dispite medical warnings that their fertility might be compromised, seem to indicate that reversal is possible.*
So no, then? There have been no longitudinal studies. I thought not, partly for the reasons you describe, and partly because it is only relatively recently that large enough numbers of young people have been given hormones, so not enough time has passed for the studies to have taken place.

In that case, we don't know whether, for instance, the instances of adult breast or testicular cancer are higher in those given sex hormones as children. We can't, therefore, be sure that the effects of these hormones are reversible, largely or otherwise.

It is not anti-trans to want to withhold potentially harmful drugs from children - it is a safeguarding matter.

Then I expect you would withhold anti-depressants as well there is considerable evidence of the harm they cause.

I spend my life talking about the interventions given to children with additional needs, frequently they are interventions that dont work, there have been over the years numerous media and internet discussions on a range of these interventions, some panorama investigations too. This is not anti those with additional needs it is trying to ensure they receive the best care. I want those with gender dysphoria to have adequate medical treatment.

I am not in a position to withhold anti depressants but I have frequently given my feedback on many of the drugs dished out to those whose behaviour can be challenging. I have advised along with other professionals that other techniques may help.

Then I expect you would withhold anti-depressants as well there is considerable evidence of the harm they cause.
That's a strange assumption. What have anti-depressants got to do with this?

You may as well ask if I would withhold growth hormones, or one of any number of things. I am not a medical doctor, but if I were I hope I would act in the best interest of my patients. I would not be basing any decisions on the 'evidence' of articles such as the one in the OP, though.

I'm afraid I can't stop using that term because I need it in order to best express myself. It does not mean anything derogitary if that helps.

So you're happy to continue to use a term, that you've specifically been told is offensive and insulting, because you're unable to articulate yourself in a better way? There are so many words and phrases that have long been in common usage but, those of us who have emotional and social maturity and integrity stopped using them when informed that they were causing offense to others. As Iam64 pointed out n****r or p**i is still in the OED but only racists would dream of using the word to describe a black or Asian person. Similarly, there are many derogatory terms to describe the physically disabled: spastic, cripple - there are many derogatory terms to describe the mentally disabled: nutter, idiot, headcase; all of them freely available to see in the Oxford English dictionary but never used except by the socially and morally bankrupt.

Please Violetsky I'm formally and politely requesting you to stop using the term cis to describe natal men and women. I find it as personally offensive a term as you would any of the examples I've provided in this post. Thank you.

Mollygo

GJ I’m quite clear about gender and sex and since woman is an adult human female for all except those who prefer their own definitions I’m not confusing anything.
I’m unsurprised to see that you can’t or won’t answer the issue of your choice of which of your statements is correct or produce evidence of trans being cancelled. Good No Debate tactics in action.

I didn't say anything about sex and gender. You're confusing posters.

Iam64

janeainsworth

If a teenager was prescribed anti-depressants wouldn't you think that that was preferable to them attempting suicide?

Of course it is. But that doesn’t mean that if a transgender person is suicidal the appropriate treatment is necessarily hormone therapy. That is for a psychiatrist to decide, and subject to appropriate consent to treatment. It might be actually be anti-depressants!

I’m late to this thread, just read the previous 6 pages. Apologies for referring back. VioletSky was asked not to use ciswoman, cisgender as some (including me) find it offensive. VioletSky indicated that because the words are in the Oxford dictionary, that somehow legitimises their use.

The words n****r and cretin amongst many others remain in the dictionary. No one decent would use them, other than in their accurate historical context.

I find phrases that are used on here offensive at times. The whole 'trans women are not women' offends me. I don't feel the need to tell you not to say it.

It's up to VS if she wants to use that phrase. Don't read her posts if they're offensive to you. It doesn't come under the 'hate speech' umbrella in the way the N word does.

The N word and the P word count as hate speech. Cis doesn't.

You can't 'not read posts' to see if they have offensive language in them.

Cis doesn't come under hate speech, but its use puts the woman to whom it refers on a spectrum on which they don't feel that they belong. It is no different from 'misgendering' a transperson.

GagaJo The whole 'trans women are not women' offends me .... but that is an accurate scientific statement. Transwomen are men, they have male genetics. The whole 'cisgender' thing is a made up word using a latin prefix that is used in chemistry to describe structure in molecules. It was made up by transpeople who, having chosen their own descriptor, decided they would apply it to others, without any consultation or agreement. That it isn't included in 'hate speech' just follows on from misogyny not being included as a hate crime, disgraceful as that is.

Yes it is. Misgendering is dead gendering someone. Cisgender is the same thing a person already is.