LoveInfamy
I feel suddenly and deliberately attacked.
No bio...
User ID: 1950
LoveInfamy
I feel suddenly and deliberately attacked.
11mo ago
the majority of people who don't go through their natal puberty, will be infertile.
To be clear, that's an effect of HRT (cross-sex hormones), not puberty blockers.
Not to mention the problems with inability to orgasm.
There's no evidence for that. Even trans women who start puberty blockers early are as likely as cis women to be able to orgasm.
LoveInfamy
I feel suddenly and deliberately attacked.
11mo ago
if they were on puberty blockers, they can't orgasm.
That's a myth. The only basis for it is the word of one or two individuals, who, as far as I can tell, have never offered any evidence to support it. And there are multiple studies (not to mention countless anecdotes) contradicting it.
LoveInfamy
I feel suddenly and deliberately attacked.
11mo ago
The m:f ratio of clinically relevant autism is cited as something like 3~4:1
Autism is more prevalent among trans people, by a factor of about 4:1 on top of that.
Among the mtf tech people I know (and I know quite about 3 in person, two of them well), none strike me as obviously autistic, and the two I said I know well actually were what I would describe as alpha nerds with above-average smoothness and social intelligence, though there's obviously a more complex selection effect there.
"Obviously autistic" doesn't necessarily mean much, since autistic people without cognitive disabilities tend to have learned ways to compensate for or hide the things that would normally make their autism obvious ("masking") by the time they reach adulthood.
Did you know either of those people before they transitioned? Because one of the things I noticed, as an autistic trans woman myself, was that estrogen makes it a lot easier to understand and care about what other people are thinking. So I wonder if maybe they were just so competent at masking already that adding hormones pushed them into "above-average social intelligence" territory.
LoveInfamy
I feel suddenly and deliberately attacked.
11mo ago
FWIW, it isn't even true that starting medical transition early on results in an inability to orgasm or a lack of sexual function. Even trans women who start puberty blockers so early that they don't have enough skin to use for a penile inversion vaginoplasty are still as likely as cis women to report being able to orgasm, after vaginoplasty using an alternative technique.
LoveInfamy
I feel suddenly and deliberately attacked.
11mo ago
It sounds like you are a homosexual transsexual (HSTS) to use Blanchard's typology, which means you are quite different from autogynephiles like Contrapoints. I don't think your experiences are typical of trans-identified males in general.
Nah. Under Blanchard's typology, this would absolutely disqualify her from being classified as HSTS:
I'm not even gay (I used to be 50-50 bisexual prior to transitioning, now it's about 95-5 in favor of men).
HSTS is defined as being exclusively attracted to men; anyone who started out as a heterosexual, bisexual, or even asexual man could only be classified as AGP.
Personally I don't think that transgender people are particularly good at faking their sex. Natalie Wynn still strikes me as a male despite the enormous amount of effort she puts into passing. Other people are even less succesfull.
Kind of ironic to see this in the same comment as strict Blanchardianism. As the theory goes, HSTS are able to pass much more convincingly and effortlessly.
LoveInfamy
I feel suddenly and deliberately attacked.
11mo ago
The side effects aren't side effects of HRT, per se, but rather effects of lifetime estrogen exposure. For example, women who start menopause later than average have a higher risk of breast cancer than women who don't - and so do women who go on HRT after menopause. In both cases, the risk comes from an extra X years of exposure to estrogen.
And indeed, those risks exist for trans women too. But someone who transitions as an adult will almost certainly have less lifetime exposure to estrogen than the average cis woman.
LoveInfamy
I feel suddenly and deliberately attacked.
1yr ago
You're really gonna jump from “she didn't say it!” to “no one else saying it!” without skipping a beat, huh?
It's both. I still think you're misinterpreting her, and your new quote makes that seem even more likely:
it turns out I have something like the audio from the 2017 Seattle Gender Odyssey Conference with Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy saying something like: [...] "If we are judging the success of vaginoplasty by post-surgical orgasm how do we know people are having orgasms prior to surgery if we are blocking them at Tanner II?"
You should try actually listening to that audio, instead of stopping the moment you hear something that you think supports your preconceived conclusion.
The question she was asking was rhetorical. If you had listened a little longer, you would've heard her answer it (starting around 9m30s) by citing a study that documented orgasms in kids prior to Tanner stage 2.
Like I said, it hasn't been directly studied, trans activists concede as much themselves, and are disappointed by the fact. This means that while, for some reason, you confidently stated the claim is “absurd” you'll have hard time falsifying it at present time.
Actually, as noted above, you falsified it yourself just now with that recording. Thanks!
Since we both agree it isn't an issue as long as WPATH guidelines are followed
I have not said that either. How did you get that impression?
Wow - you quoted yourself saying it twice, then repeated it a third time, and now you're denying that you ever said it at all? Interesting tactic.
Here, from your very own post, with bracketed insertions for context:
You quoting yourself saying: "The reason they [WPATH] do that [recommend not using puberty blockers until Tanner stage 2 has begun] is because starting them too early permanently halts the development of sexual function"
Then you quoted yourself saying: "Which was my point, they [WPATH] do so [recommend not using puberty blockers until Tanner stage 2 has begun] in order to avoid that issue [of purportedly never developing sexual function]."
And then you said, unquoted: "It was about why WPATH makes the recommendations it does [not using puberty blockers until Tanner stage 2 has begun], and you were claiming my explanation for why they're making these recommendations [i.e. to avoid the purported issue of never developing sexual function] is “absurd”."
In other words... like I said, although we disagree about whether the purported issue of people who go on puberty blockers at Tanner stage 2 never developing sexual function is a real thing that happens in real life, and although we disagree about whether WPATH's true reason for recommending waiting until Tanner stage 2 is what you say it is rather than what they say it is, we both agree that following WPATH's recommendation avoids the issue.
How sure are we a major surgery is going to be necessary absent puberty blockers?
Essentially no natal males will make it through puberty without testosterone leaving at least some outwardly visible effects on their bodies that can't be reversed with hormones alone. Those changes are well-documented, and you can look them up yourself if you need a refresher.
Of course, it's ultimately up to the patient to decide what their goals are in terms of having feminine features, and up to genetics to determine exactly how far away from those goals their natal puberty will deposit them. But given a particular goal, someone who went through natal puberty will virtually always need more surgery to get there.
Yes, and according to Olson-Kennedy, that makes it worse. Apparently you're not going to have much fun with a Tanner II penis either.
As noted above, that's actually not what she said, which is clear if you listen for just a few more seconds.
Well, it's not one ambiguous quote, it's one that's maybe ambiguous if I'm being charitable, and one that's absolutely clear.
As noted above, that's incorrect. It's now one ambiguous quote (which, either way you interpret it, is contradicted by the second one) and one that you've misinterpreted as saying the opposite of what it actually says.
Yeah, body dysmorphia is a bitch. Same thing happens to people getting plastic surgeries. You get that nose job, and you start looking at your chin more critically all of a sudden.
We're talking about gender dysphoria here, not body dysmorphia. A key difference is that gender dysphoria gets better when the issue is corrected. If you spend some time getting to know people who are transitioning, you can even witness that happening -- at least for the features that can be corrected, which is why I think it's so important to ensure that young trans people have the opportunity to prevent natal puberty from progressing to the point where those features can't be corrected.
LoveInfamy
I feel suddenly and deliberately attacked.
1yr ago
We do, and it's the same way we verify that anyone else has any other psychological disorder: diagnostic criteria laid out in the DSM.
LoveInfamy
I feel suddenly and deliberately attacked.
1yr ago
But when you hear first person testimony of specialists in the field, particularly one who seems to be pretty invested in the pro-trans side
By "specialists in the field", you mean "Marci Bowers", right? And by "particularly one" you mean "no one else"?
I've tried to find supporting evidence for her/your claim, but every reference seems to lead right back to that same quote from her as the original and only source.
Which was my point, they do so in order to avoid that issue.
All right, progress! Since we both agree it isn't an issue as long as WPATH guidelines are followed, I guess there's no need to discuss it any further. Moving on.
If you're putting them at risk of other diseases and disorders, they are not "safer".
I'd expect such a statement to be uttered only by someone who believes all risks are equal.
It falls apart as soon as we give it a moment's thought, because in reality, some risks are more serious than others. The risks of major surgery, for example, are far more serious than any of the risks of puberty blockers, which means trading the former set of risks for the latter is safer.
If you have to use a more complicated technique for vangioplasty, it's not "easier".
Again, that statement falls apart as soon as we give it a moment's thought, this time in a couple ways:
First, we're talking about whether transition as a whole is easier, not whether any single procedure is easier. If going on blockers means someone can avoid one or more surgeries in the future, then their transition will be easier overall, even if the remaining procedure uses a more complicated technique.
(And to be clear, PPT is mainly only more complicated from the surgeon's perspective, not from the patient's. Since it doesn't require lengthy hair removal procedures, it's likely to be easier from the patient's perspective.)
Second, only about 5%-13% of trans women have had vaginoplasty anyway; of those who haven't, only about half want to have it in the future (source). For the rest, having to use a more complicated surgical technique simply isn't an issue.
It's starting to sound like you're more interested in winning internet slap fights than getting to the bottom of things.
Nah, I'm mostly interested in correcting misinformation.
I've been part of this community for three or four iterations now, depending on how you count them. I share its disdain for the shoddy arguments and emotional pressure put forth by trans activists.
But I've also spent several months getting to know dozens of actual trans people, observing their concerns, researching more medical and surgical options than I even knew existed, and implementing my own transition.
I'm interested in sharing what I've learned from all that with this community, because I've noticed that every time trans issues come up in a thread like this, and particularly whenever someone is arguing the anti-trans side of them, the evidentiary standards seem to slip -- to the point where, say, one ambiguous quote from one lady is held up as proof for an extraordinary claim about sexual development.
I'm also perfectly aware that trans blokes still look like blokes, even when they transition late
Personally, I agree -- but in my experience, many of them seem to be just as bothered by the width of their hips and shoulders as trans women are (with the desired proportions reversed, of course).
Not tolerating a less invasive step might show a more invasive step is not worth taking, but how does tolerating it show that it is worth taking?
It doesn't, and I never claimed it would. Not all tests work that way. Some tests can only rule a possibility out, but they can't definitively rule it in; nonetheless, such tests can still be extremely valuable.
LoveInfamy
I feel suddenly and deliberately attacked.
1yr ago
In cases like that, where a kid (under 14 at least) faces consequences in every direction, typically the doctors and the parents/guardians look at concrete data, test results, imaging, prognosis learned from studies, and make the best decision together for the kid (with the parent being the final arbiter outside of especially egregious decisions where the data is very, very clear - like blood transfusions.)
That's the situation we have today, right? When a kid goes on puberty blockers, it's because that's what doctors and parents/guardians decided would be best.
The people arguing against puberty blockers are claiming that the decision shouldn't be made by doctors and parents/guardians, and instead should be made by unrelated busybodies.
They don't freeze the kid in cryo until their birth certificate says they're old enough and then have the kid make the decision.
In some cases they do (minus the cryogenic hyperbole). For example, in the case of intersex kids, although it used to be standard practice for doctors and/or parents to surgically "pick a side" shortly after birth and hope the kid grew up to like it, that turned out to be disastrous often enough that such kids are now generally given the choice themselves once they get old enough to make it.
LoveInfamy
I feel suddenly and deliberately attacked.
1yr ago
Nope, try again. You claimed puberty blockers will permanently retard someone's ability to understand long term consequences. Your evidence doesn't back that up. I think you owe us either some evidence that people treated with puberty blockers are permanently unable to understand long term consequences, or else a retraction.
LoveInfamy
I feel suddenly and deliberately attacked.
1yr ago
We might run into the philosophical issue of "what is health" in some corner cases
Seems to me you're just trying to define your hypocrisy out of existence. Gender dysphoria isn't healthy.
LoveInfamy
I feel suddenly and deliberately attacked.
1yr ago
No matter how much you attempt to detach from it, you will still find yourself emotionally attached to this thing that you created, as if it was another part of you.
I don't want to detract from the pain you went through in that situation, but please don't assume everyone who goes through an abortion will have the same feelings about it that you did.
I went through something similar with my girlfriend around that same age - we were both 22, I think. I felt no emotional attachment to it myself. I can't know everything that went through her mind, but she certainly didn't give any indication that she had any emotional attachment to it either. And looking back at it, many years later, I can say that I've never felt any shame or regret about it whatsoever.
LoveInfamy
I feel suddenly and deliberately attacked.
1yr ago
I agree it still seems likely that at least some of the increase in trans identification among natal girls is caused by social contagion. My point here is just that my experience has convinced me that social contagion probably doesn't explain all of it, because the standard explanation is more plausible than I originally thought.
LoveInfamy
I feel suddenly and deliberately attacked.
1yr ago
Do you believe we should ignore the risks of every "natural process", or only this particular natural process?
For example, cancer occurs as a natural result of cell mutations and has been observed in many species. Applying your logic consistently would mean that we shouldn't treat the natural process of cancer the same way we treat interventions to stop cancer, and therefore that the risks of e.g. chemotherapy can't be justified by weighing them against the risks of untreated cancer.
LoveInfamy
I feel suddenly and deliberately attacked.
1yr ago
How can a minor without the capability to understand long term consequences consent to a procedure that will permanently retard their ability to understand long term consequences?
Citation needed.
LoveInfamy
I feel suddenly and deliberately attacked.
1yr ago
For there to be proper informed consent, the kid needs to be able to understand life long choices. The kid needs to understand not just the words "increased risk of heart disease or stroke" but needs to have a conceptual understanding of risk and what it is like to go through a stroke, what happens after, etc. It's one thing to know the words that it will be harder to have sexual pleasure or start a family, it's another thing to be able to conceptualize what that would mean for them as an individual
I don't disagree with much of that, but the unfortunate reality is, those risks exist no matter what.
They have exactly the same capacity at age 12/16/whatever to understand the risks of going on blockers and then possibly cross-sex hormones as they do to understand the risks of not doing it: what it's like to go through a series of major surgeries to correct things that could've been prevented (funding them if they aren't covered by insurance, taking weeks away from work to recover, etc.) and to live with the things that could've been prevented but are now uncorrectable, what it's like to have to reintroduce yourself to everyone you know as an adult, to update your photo ID when you no longer resemble your old photo, and so on.
Denying them a choice in the matter doesn't make any of the risks go away, it just forces them into accepting one set of risks instead of the other.
The experience of dressing in a certain way and cutting hair in a certain way is absolutely trivial and never entered my mind as a concern with regards to informed consent and making permanent medical decisions at 16.
It probably should have, because I don't think the experience of social transition is really very trivial at all. It's not just about the self-contained act of putting on different clothes or getting a different hairstyle; it's also about how your interactions with everyone else are affected by whether they perceive you as male or female.
LoveInfamy
I feel suddenly and deliberately attacked.
1yr ago
What do you think would compell Dr. Marci Bowers, a board member of the WPATH, to make such an absurd claim publically?
As I wrote earlier, a more reasonable interpretation of her words would be that people who start puberty blockers at Tanner stage 2 had never experienced orgasm prior to going on blockers.
To claim that no one who started blockers at Tanner stage 2 has ever experienced an orgasm, even after stopping blockers and resuming natal puberty or starting cross-sex hormones (and thus proceeding past Tanner stage 2 in either case), is quite an extraordinary claim. It sounds like you have no evidence for that claim, and you simply believe it because you heard someone else say it and you liked the conclusion they drew from it. Is that accurate?
How many examples of people who were blocked still in Tanner stage 1 can you give that had no issues with developing sexual function?
What does Tanner stage 1 have to do with anything in this discussion?
WPATH recommends not starting puberty blockers until Tanner stage 2. That's the same time that GnRH agonists are used in kids with precocious puberty (precocious puberty is defined as early onset of Tanner stage 2). Do you believe that kids treated for precocious puberty never develop the ability to orgasm?
The argument for puberty blockers is supposed to be that, particularly for trans women, going for male puberty causes a host of changes that would have to be reversed later on, be it dropping of the voice or changes to the body structure. Fair enough, except their are trade-offs.
Those trade-offs don't change the conclusion that transitioning is easier, safer, and more effective for people who haven't completed natal puberty and therefore don't need to undergo any procedures to reverse those changes.
So maybe your body, your face, and your voice will be more feminine thanks to puberty blockers
Yes, that was my point. Thank you for conceding it.
but your penis will be smaller making vaginoplasty more difficult,
In reality, the quantity of penile skin is only an issue for some vaginoplasty techniques, not all. Peritoneal pull-through doesn't require the use of penile skin, and arguably gives better results anyway (self-lubricating and requiring less dilation and other maintenance).
Further, while puberty blockers for trans women come with trade-offs, puberty blockers for trans-men make no sense.
Since you seem to be unaware that women undergo skeletal changes during natal puberty, which can be avoided with the use of GnRH agonists, I suppose my prediction of total unfamiliarity with both human sexual development and the procedures involved in transition was correct on both counts.
If you allow me a bit of hyperbole: ending up as a dim, brittle midget with micropenis is not what I'd call "minimal impact".
On this point, I'll defer to your expertise.
Yes, but the question was in the other direction: how does not being bothered by being called a girl's name, or being treated as a women show you you'll be satisfied with hormones or surgery?
No, the question was, "How does the experience of changing your name, dressing a different way, or going to the other bathroom help to inform you about making permanent modifications to your body?" And I answered that question. Since the body modifications are undertaken as one of several steps toward the goal of living in a particular gender role, learning whether the less invasive steps are tolerable does indeed help to inform you about whether the more invasive steps are worth taking.
As you may recall, that point started as a response to the claim that "We still have kid brains making the final decision to go on HRT, it's just a 16 year old kid brain instead of a 12 year old kid brain": I pointed out that the 16 year old with 4 years of experience living in that gender role still has more information with which to make that decision than the 12 year old did.
LoveInfamy
I feel suddenly and deliberately attacked.
1yr ago
What common statistical phenomenon?
Simpson's Paradox, I think, or maybe more specifically the variation known as Yule's Association Paradox. As explained here, "It is typical of spurious correlations between variables with a common cause, that is, variables that are dependent unconditionally (α(D)≠0) but independent given the values of the common cause (α(Di)=0). For example, sleeping in one’s clothes is correlated with having a headache the next morning. However, once we stratify the data according to the levels of alcohol intake on the previous night, the association vanishes: given the same level of drunkenness, people who undress before going to bed will have the same headache, ceteris paribus, as those who kept their clothes on."
In this case, I contend you're seeing a spurious correlation between being prescribed GnRH agonists and persisting in one's gender identity, which will vanish if you stratify the data according to the common cause, i.e., having gender dysphoria that's obvious/severe enough to convince the doctors involved in the study to prescribe GnRH agonists.
100% diagnosis accuracy rate? I'd be shocked if most doctors could diagnose anything short of a broken arm 100% accurately.
Agreed. Luckily, that's not at all what I'm suggesting; in fact, it almost couldn't be further from it.
What I'm suggesting is that if you're seeing a 100% correlation between being prescribed GnRH agonists and persisting in one's gender identity, that suggests the doctors in your study have set such a high threshold for prescribing that they're failing to diagnose a lot of patients whose dysphoria isn't obvious/severe enough to qualify for treatment. They've eliminated false positives at the cost of cranking up the false negative rate.
LoveInfamy
I feel suddenly and deliberately attacked.
1yr ago
You seem to be replying to an unrelated point I didn't make.
LoveInfamy
I feel suddenly and deliberately attacked.
1yr ago
I don't think an explanation that relies on novel speculation about the causes of gender dysphoria and/or the effects of puberty is necessarily more "obvious" than one that relies on a common statistical phenomenon.
The reason they do that is because starting them too early permanently halts the development of sexual function (see my Marci Bowers quote from the other comment),
That claim is absurd on its face. Is there any actual evidence for it?
There's no evidence starting them after Tanner II helps minimize the impact on the brain.
There's no evidence that there is any impact on the brain to minimize in the first place.
Also keep in mind that this proves blockers are not reversible, contrary to what is often claimed by professionals in trans case.
I suppose it would prove that, if it were true that blockers permanently halted the development of sexual function.
There isn't really any evidence for that
Can you clarify this statement?
If you're saying there's no evidence that transition is easier, safer, and more effective for people who haven't completed natal puberty, then that's simply absurd - such a claim would imply a total unfamiliarity with both human sexual development and the procedures involved in transition. So I have to assume that's not what you mean.
How does the experience of changing your name, dressing a different way, or going to the other bathroom help to inform you about making permanent modifications to your body?
It helps inform you about how committed you really are to living as the other gender. If you can't stand being called by a girl's name or being treated as a girl, you might wanna think twice about becoming a girl, right?
LoveInfamy
I feel suddenly and deliberately attacked.
1yr ago
it's another to ask ~14 year olds make permanent, "no take backsies" decisions about their bodies. Doesn't the idea strike you as completely bonkers?
By that logic, shouldn't 14 year olds be put on mandatory puberty blockers until they're old enough in your view to make permanent decisions about their bodies? After all, the effects of natal puberty are every bit as permanent as the effects of cross-sex hormones and reassignment surgery.
LoveInfamy
I feel suddenly and deliberately attacked.
1yr ago
Not just anecdotal, and not just "may be less-than-fully realized". I believe Marci Bowers' words were "has never experienced an orgasm".
Specifically: "Every single child who was truly blocked at Tanner stage 2 (9 - 11 years old) has never experienced orgasm."
She means they've never experienced orgasm prior to going on blockers, right? Surely she doesn't think anyone is staying at Tanner stage 2 forever.
They'd basically be in the same boat as a cis girl who starts puberty around that time, and if they maintain that same hormone level into old age, they'd be in the same boat as a cis woman who starts HRT at menopause.
More options
Context Copy link