LoveInfamy
I feel suddenly and deliberately attacked.
No bio...
User ID: 1950
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
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.
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.
More options
Context Copy link