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
Transgenderism is for life, and it is unprecedented money maker for big pharma and big medicine.
This is a little hard to believe, because the "for life" parts (i.e., hormones) are generic medications and they're dirt cheap.
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