politics

On your first point... [truncated] ...I have seen no evidence of that at all, and instead there's a mountain of evidence that social transition and puberty blockers lower suicidality in trans kids and increase mental health outcomes.

Most of those tests you refer to also involve therapy / councilling in combination with the drugs and very few compare the two. Further there aren't a ton of studies that involve blind tests and placebos. I'll stress again that I am not against this therapy - I am against it so early in the adolescents development process.

We've been using puberty blockers, not just for trans kids but for precocious puberty for decades and have more than enough long term evidence of their effectiveness and safety.

Which is why it's an allowed treatment, yes. But many drugs have multiple usages and in fact multiple doses which affects the end result. Dialing back an aggressive hormonal rush is a bit different than seeking to prevent it outright: which is the goal sought in this case. There are health risks to doing this and as I have asserted elsewhere: urgency is manufactured here. An adolescent needs to feel loved and supported at that stage- not like a mistake that needs immediate care.

The question of consent and knowledge of risk is a red herring. Kids can't consent to any medical procedures or sex because we've defined consent that way. But consent from the patient is not always needed for medical procedures, especially when the patient is unable to give consent. Should coma patients still get care that has risks? They can't consent right?

This is why I made the example I did. They cannot provide consent (as it isn't informed - even if it is explained to them.) This isn't a life or death decision that needs to be made immediately. It involves the rest of that childs hopefully long life. I see no reason to rush into a decision involving drugs which may impact that. And this is, in fact, how most medical professionals should (and do) approach that.

In reality, your statements lay bare a bias, which is why you're getting downvoted. You only seem to care about risks and consent for this specific highly-politicized topic and not medical procedures broadly. Because this is not about a broad critique of consent, it's about trying to excuse your uncomfortablity with this one subject and trying to justify it in any way you can.

Please detail how "too early for consent" somehow means "not at all". That's illogical. I support (as I have said multiple times) consentual therapy... but not that early. Consent should be given by the adolescent when they are legally and mentally capable of making such a choice. My statements and stance are very clear. If you disagree with it that's perfectly fine. You are entitled to your opinion as well... but don't go manufacturing some narrative as to what I believe or who I am.

...but you should at least recognize why the majority of major medical institutions make the recommendations they do.

I covered this above but most recommended therapy/counseling first then move onto drugs. I'm reasonably confident.

While on the topic of what professionals do: My family is littered with medical professionals ranging from people who develop drugs, work with children who need said drugs, are pediatricians and so on. It's a long list. From the development side there are a number of educators as well. K-12, special needs... you name it. I personally travel between hospitals for work and rub elbows with some fantastically bright individuals in many fields. I suspect I may know a thing about what is recommended and how testing is done - but please explain it further to me if you feel I lack perspective.

Perhaps some of your preconceived notions about me may be changing? I am advocating for the child, the adolescent, the individual - who needs the proper care... rather than being part of the wailing masses too busy virtue signaling and brigadeing to actually discuss what is right rather than what feels good.