Seven Year Old "Too Young" For Puberty Blockers

[Blasveck]

I think the problem that Dis sees with this is the State using force to justify what it feels is immoral.

Yes, parents can be bigoted, they can also be incompetent, disrespectful, and all around horrible.
The problem is using the State to enforce what you feel is moral, even if said action (denying the child the pill) is wrong.

The parents' right to cause suffering does not trump the state's right to prevent it.

Which could possibly lead to the State justifying other actions against parents that it deems incompetent.

I'd like to mention that I'm on the fence about this, so don't make any assumptions.

[Olthar]

The parents' right to cause suffering does not trump the state's right to prevent it.

Yes. It does. And that is quite unfortunate.

Then I suppose we must agree to disagree because I simply cannot and will not concede to such a cynical worldview.

[Distruzio]

Municipal authorities would not, via intervention, jeopardize the established recognition of rights of parents. A national CP would. That's immoral and unacceptable.

the fuck does that work? how does the government intervenes in this issue differ from the government intervenes in this issue?

i don't want to end up derailing but really now

Municipal authorities do not recognize rights. National authorities do. Municipal authorities may disagree with certain nationally recognized rights, so long as those rights are not lawfully enforced (such as homosexual marriage in the US). While a disregard of dysphoria is not legally abuse at the national level, I would support it's illegality among the municipalities. Why? Because illegalization at a national level threatens the rights of parents everywhere whereas illegalization at a municipal level does not.

[Distruzio]

Yes. It does. And that is quite unfortunate.

Then I suppose we must agree to disagree because I simply cannot and will not concede to such a cynical worldview.

That's quite fine with me. Just remember my cynicism when you see me trumpeting about libertarianism, anarchism, or religion. No zealotry here.

[Soy lor n]

Tits or get the fuck out.

Until I've had my sammich then I'm calling bullshit, mad'am. Simply bullshit.

... I'm hungry now and have to settle for boiled toast again. *sigh*

I can't because PG-13.

Technically tits are PG-13.

Sorry, I'm behind. This thread went fast all of a sudden!

[Olthar]

I can't because PG-13.

Technically tits are PG-13.

Sorry, I'm behind. This thread went fast all of a sudden!

Tits automatically launch a movie straight into R, unfortunately.

[Immoren]

Technically tits are PG-13.

Sorry, I'm behind. This thread went fast all of a sudden!

Tits automatically launch a movie straight into R, unfortunately.

Only in more barbaric parts of the world. *nods*

[Olthar]

Tits automatically launch a movie straight into R, unfortunately.

Only in more barbaric parts of the world. *nods*

[Soy lor n]

Gender dysphoria and the manner in which it may be treated falls under this approach. Now, granted, I take great pride in cultivating a communicative relationship with my son. I would hear him out and I would seek out therapy for him. Were we to reside in an area hostile to transgendered individuals (relatively moreso than anywhere else) then I'd insist we move elsewhere.

But not every parent is like I am. But every relationship between parent and child is as I've described.

I would do all the same as above, if the child from the OP were my son. I would just be disinclined to include medical intervention (even "harmless," "reversible" interventions such as puberty blockers - didn't someone previously say that they interfere with the pubescent growth spurt?) unless I was convinced it was absolutely necessary.

[Olthar]

Gender dysphoria and the manner in which it may be treated falls under this approach. Now, granted, I take great pride in cultivating a communicative relationship with my son. I would hear him out and I would seek out therapy for him. Were we to reside in an area hostile to transgendered individuals (relatively moreso than anywhere else) then I'd insist we move elsewhere.

But not every parent is like I am. But every relationship between parent and child is as I've described.

I would do all the same as above, if the child from the OP were my son. I would just be disinclined to include medical intervention (even "harmless," "reversible" interventions such as puberty blockers - didn't someone previously say that they interfere with the pubescent growth spurt?) unless I was convinced it was absolutely necessary.

It is absolutely necessary.

[Soy lor n]

i don't want doctors making decision for what is best with my kid, i am the parent, its my mistake to make

How arrogant and selfish of you. The well-being of your child is secondary to your ego? I pity your poor offspring and the inevitably terrible life they'll have.

Is it just me, or is this part of the argument (parents vs. medical professionals) exactly equivalent to the pro-circ argument?
"How dare parents suggest they know better than the pediatricians saying the benefits outweigh the risks and every male should be circumcised?"

(I understand that the major difference comes in when the child is requesting the procedure, which is why I restricted it to the parents/doctors part of the debate. That said, I think at least a few people here saying that the kid should get to decide what he wants to do with his body at age 7 were saying in the circumcision thread that he shouldn't get to make that choice til he's at least 16, possibly 18)

[Soy lor n]

I would do all the same as above, if the child from the OP were my son. I would just be disinclined to include medical intervention (even "harmless," "reversible" interventions such as puberty blockers - didn't someone previously say that they interfere with the pubescent growth spurt?) unless I was convinced it was absolutely necessary.

It is absolutely necessary.

Since you are neither my child, nor my child's therapist, you have done nothing to convince me.

[Souseiseki]

How arrogant and selfish of you. The well-being of your child is secondary to your ego? I pity your poor offspring and the inevitably terrible life they'll have.

Is it just me, or is this part of the argument (parents vs. medical professionals) exactly equivalent to the pro-circ argument?
"How dare parents suggest they know better than the pediatricians saying the benefits outweigh the risks and every male should be circumcised?"

(I understand that the major difference comes in when the child is requesting the procedure, which is why I restricted it to the parents/doctors part of the debate. That said, I think at least a few people here saying that the kid should get to decide what he wants to do with his body at age 7 were saying in the circumcision thread that he shouldn't get to make that choice til he's at least 16, possibly 18)

this doesn't work because

1) they aren't allowed to do the ACTUAL things like take horomones (not just blockers) until they're 18
2) much like no one has ever been killed because the kid down the street did not get circumcised, no one has killed themselves because they cannot get circumcised
3) you can stop taking horomone blockers. you cannot (yet) your foreskin back on.
4) this is more comparable to being circumcised because you have phimosis or something instead of being circumcised for shits and giggles, which you will remember most people were not opposed to
5)

[Soy lor n]

Wasn't referring to the child as an "it."
He is a she because like it or not, she has female genitalia and female body.

You said "it's a she". "It's a she" means "the child is a she". Thus, "it" means "the child". You were absolutely calling him an it.

Unless you are intending to do anything to those genitalia, which I certainly hope you aren't, they are of no relevance and he is a he because his brain is a he brain.

a) dude is clearly being an ass by intentionally misgendering the child
b) "it" in this case sounds to me like the "it's a girl" used when you first discover the sex of your child, and so I don't think that is actually a dehumanizing use of the word.

Still an ass for insisting that he's a girl though

[Olthar]

It is absolutely necessary.

Since you are neither my child, nor my child's therapist, you have done nothing to convince me.

Very well. If you don't mind your child becoming suicidally depressed, then fine. I sure hope you can afford the funeral costs.

[Soy lor n]

Is it just me, or is this part of the argument (parents vs. medical professionals) exactly equivalent to the pro-circ argument?
"How dare parents suggest they know better than the pediatricians saying the benefits outweigh the risks and every male should be circumcised?"

(I understand that the major difference comes in when the child is requesting the procedure, which is why I restricted it to the parents/doctors part of the debate. That said, I think at least a few people here saying that the kid should get to decide what he wants to do with his body at age 7 were saying in the circumcision thread that he shouldn't get to make that choice til he's at least 16, possibly 18)

this doesn't work because

1) they aren't allowed to do the ACTUAL things like take horomones (not just blockers) until they're 18
2) much like no one has ever been killed because the kid down the street did not get circumcised, no one has killed themselves because they cannot get circumcised
3) you can stop taking horomone blockers. you cannot (yet) your foreskin back on.
4) this is more comparable to being circumcised because you have phimosis or something instead of being circumcised for shits and giggles, which you will remember most people were not opposed to
5)

1) oh...I thought people were saying he'd go on hormones earlier. So he's going to be on these blockers for NINE years?
2) yeah maybe. Honestly, given the link between circumcision and religion, I wouldn't be surprised to find that kids have been at least beaten severely, if not killed, when other kids found out they weren't circumcised. But that's not necessarily related.
3) Sure you can. There is a surgery for that. It's not exactly the same as if you'd never been circumcised, but it sounds like this isn't the same as if you'd never gone on hormone blockers either, regardless of how many times some people have been repeating that it's completely reversible.
4) Fair enough, although some of the Jewish people made the argument that it would be traumatic for them to not be circumcised because it would mean they weren't Jewish boys. I don't think that's on the same level, but some people do take their religion very seriously, and might even try to self-circumcise, which can't be good...

[Soy lor n]

Since you are neither my child, nor my child's therapist, you have done nothing to convince me.

Very well. If you don't mind your child becoming suicidally depressed, then fine. I sure hope you can afford the funeral costs.

I assume you didn't read what I said?

[Olthar]

Very well. If you don't mind your child becoming suicidally depressed, then fine. I sure hope you can afford the funeral costs.

I assume you didn't read what I said?

Of course I did. You said that medical treatment for trans children isn't necessary. I said it was. You declared that I am in no position to convince you, so it conceded and gave a bit of friendly advice. Now, if you don't want that advice, then you are free to ignore it. Though, it won't really change the fact that suicide rates among trans individuals are monstrously huge. You can ignore my words, but you can't ignore reality.

[Soy lor n]

The parents' right to cause suffering does not trump the state's right to prevent it.

Which could possibly lead to the State justifying other actions against parents that it deems incompetent.

I'd like to mention that I'm on the fence about this, so don't make any assumptions.

The wrong government could easily decide that it's child abuse to raise your child without religion, and find "experts" to back them up.
Or that it's child abuse to allow your child born of one sex to live as the opposite gender. (sorry if I didn't use correct terminology there - I'm trying!)

[Soy lor n]

I assume you didn't read what I said?

Of course I did. You said that medical treatment for trans children isn't necessary. I said it was. You declared that I am in no position to convince you, so it conceded and gave a bit of friendly advice. Now, if you don't want that advice, then you are free to ignore it. Though, it won't really change the fact that suicide rates among trans individuals are monstrously huge. You can ignore my words, but you can't ignore reality.

Almost none of that is right. I said that only my child and his therapist could convince me that it was necessary in his case. Not a random person on the internet.

Not to mention that raising a child from the ages 7-18 (and beyond if I pay for college or they don't move out at 18), especially one with high medical bills due to expensive treatments like puberty blockers that probably aren't even covered by insurance*, will be MUCH more expensive than a funeral. In fact, one year of puberty blockers probably costs more than a funeral. So the dollar cost is definitely not going to be why I try to keep my child from killing himself.

I am extremely sorry that you had as tough a time in your teenage years as you did, but it doesn't sound like you had the kind of parental support that I'm talking about - listening to my child, getting him into therapy early on, encouraging him to live and identify as a boy when he chooses, and trying to keep him in a safe environment. If that doesn't seem to be enough to get him until he's old enough to decide he wants hormones, like I said, I'll reevaluate.

*yet another reason it can't be considered child abuse - many parents just can't afford it. We don't consider it child abuse when parents feed their kids a shit diet and they end up with type II diabetes before the age of 10

[Soy lor n]

Technically tits are PG-13.

Sorry, I'm behind. This thread went fast all of a sudden!

Tits automatically launch a movie straight into R, unfortunately.

Titanic.

I think it was easier to get a PG-13 rating with boobies back in the day than it is now though

[Nazi Flower Power]

Tits automatically launch a movie straight into R, unfortunately.

Titanic.

I think it was easier to get a PG-13 rating with boobies back in the day than it is now though

Titanic is "back in the day"? You are making me feel old!

[Blekksprutia]

There's a reason there's an age limit on tattoos: people too young to understand, in depth, the long term effects of a permanent bodily modification, may be less hesitant to get a huge skull on their arm.
It's the same reason there's an age limit on sex change.

[Immoren]

There's a reason there's an age limit on tattoos: people too young to understand, in depth, the long term effects of a permanent bodily modification, may be less hesitant to get a huge skull on their arm.
It's the same reason there's an age limit on sex change.

Effects of hormone blockers are reversible,.

[Blekksprutia]

There's a reason there's an age limit on tattoos: people too young to understand, in depth, the long term effects of a permanent bodily modification, may be less hesitant to get a huge skull on their arm.
It's the same reason there's an age limit on sex change.

Effects of hormone blockers are reversible,.

I misread the OP. Excuse me.