Minister Orders Inquiry Into 4,000 % Rise In Children Wanting To Change Sex

[Res Ipsa]

[...] Why hold the psychologist responsible if she's a consenting adult? I

Because he is a psychologist.

Professionals have legal duties to comply with the relevant professional standards. Ajax, if a patient asks you to treat their glaucoma by pouring bleach in their eyes, you would be legally liable for malpractice.

[Kishkumen]

Thanks for your thoughtful response as well. I've spent most of my energy critiquing a form of argument. As you can tell, I think focussing on the specific facts at hand when formulating the question to be discussed is important. But I think you'll find that I do so pretty consistently when I discuss these types of issues regardless of my position. For example, if states were passing laws banning circumcision of minors, I would phrase the issue exactly the same way, even though I would take the opposite position. So, I can understand why you would reasonably interpret what I'm doing as result oriented, but it's actually not.

By critiquing categorical reasoning, I'm not rejecting anyone's viewpoint. But I am saying let's not spend hours arguing about categories and labels that don't help us figure out how to answer the question. In fact, trying to construct a persuasive argument is going to require me to start from some kind of common value. In fact, if you and I did not agree on this specific issue, I would likely start by asking why we the people should give the state the power to make this decision. What is it that worries you about allowing adolescents, parents and doctors to make this decision? And I would try to listen to and understand their concerns. Then I would reason from the values they express to try and persuade them that keeping the government out of this specific decision is consistent with their deeply held values.

In my opinion, the concept of consistency is as indeterminate as categorical reasoning. Just for example, let's take the gamut of medical/surgical treatment that theoretically could be available for minors: puberty blockers, hormones, breast augmentation or reduction, facial reconstruction surgery, adams apple reduction, penectomy, orchiectomy, feminizing genitoplasty, oophorectomy, hysterectomy, metoidioplasty, phalloplasty, and scrotoplasty. There may very well be different reasons why we should give the government the power to make some of these decisions and not for others. I would suggest that focussing on sensible result for each case would be more productive than making consistency a primary concern. There may situations in which the degree of inconsistency in how we handle different issues reaches a point where it makes sense to adjust something about one or both issues. But requiring consistency as any kind of precondition to deciding an issue that presents itself is, in my opinion, disempowering. We should be able to address issues as they arrive. If we arrive at an answer that we think is incompatible with something else, we can adjust one, the other, or both.

Disempowering or no, you face the same problem of not finding consensus. You can insist that other approaches are counterproductive, but that doesn’t change the fact that people hold certain values, and, inconvenient though they may be, they still impact the way the political situation unfolds on the ground. I am a believer in cultural change, but cultural change takes time, and it is messy. I doubt we disagree about the latter. I just think we are interested in different questions and essentially talking past each other.

[Res Ipsa]

Thanks for your thoughtful response as well. I've spent most of my energy critiquing a form of argument. As you can tell, I think focussing on the specific facts at hand when formulating the question to be discussed is important. But I think you'll find that I do so pretty consistently when I discuss these types of issues regardless of my position. For example, if states were passing laws banning circumcision of minors, I would phrase the issue exactly the same way, even though I would take the opposite position. So, I can understand why you would reasonably interpret what I'm doing as result oriented, but it's actually not.

By critiquing categorical reasoning, I'm not rejecting anyone's viewpoint. But I am saying let's not spend hours arguing about categories and labels that don't help us figure out how to answer the question. In fact, trying to construct a persuasive argument is going to require me to start from some kind of common value. In fact, if you and I did not agree on this specific issue, I would likely start by asking why we the people should give the state the power to make this decision. What is it that worries you about allowing adolescents, parents and doctors to make this decision? And I would try to listen to and understand their concerns. Then I would reason from the values they express to try and persuade them that keeping the government out of this specific decision is consistent with their deeply held values.

In my opinion, the concept of consistency is as indeterminate as categorical reasoning. Just for example, let's take the gamut of medical/surgical treatment that theoretically could be available for minors: puberty blockers, hormones, breast augmentation or reduction, facial reconstruction surgery, adams apple reduction, penectomy, orchiectomy, feminizing genitoplasty, oophorectomy, hysterectomy, metoidioplasty, phalloplasty, and scrotoplasty. There may very well be different reasons why we should give the government the power to make some of these decisions and not for others. I would suggest that focussing on sensible result for each case would be more productive than making consistency a primary concern. There may situations in which the degree of inconsistency in how we handle different issues reaches a point where it makes sense to adjust something about one or both issues. But requiring consistency as any kind of precondition to deciding an issue that presents itself is, in my opinion, disempowering. We should be able to address issues as they arrive. If we arrive at an answer that we think is incompatible with something else, we can adjust one, the other, or both.

Disempowering or no, you face the same problem of not finding consensus. You can insist that other approaches are counterproductive, but that doesn’t change the fact that people hold certain values, and, inconvenient though they may be, they still impact the way the political situation unfolds on the ground. I am a believer in cultural change, but cultural change takes time, and it is messy. I doubt we disagree about the latter. I just think we are interested in different questions and essentially talking past each other.

I don't feel like we are talking past each other. I don't think the fact that we disagree about how to think about an issue is the same as talking past each other. I don't get the impression that you don't understand my argument. If you think I'm not understanding or ignoring what you are saying, please point it out and I will try to do better.

In this discussion, I'm separating out the issue of persuading others to form a consensus from how best to approach the issue in a style conducive to individually arriving at an opinion on how the issue should be resolved. I'm not deluded enough to think that I can "insist" on anything. But making arguments is not, in my opinion, "insistence." At a minimum, when figuring out how to think the issue, I think it's rational to try avoid framing it in a way that is personally disempowering.

In this discussion, I'm asking the normative question "What should we do?" I do that because I don't want to obscure the fact that what are talking about is making choices. And making choices about who gets to make choices. Beyond that, there is a whole universe of practical and pragmatic issues. What will actually happen takes place in the context of a legal regime that sets creates rules and process for how decisions are made. Even if it could be objectively shown that I'm right about any part of what I've said, my right to "get my way" [scare quotes for emphasis] is no greater than anyone else's.

And I'm also perfectly aware that other people hold values that are different than mine and that having different values than mine is not an error or sin. Once I arrive at an answer to the normative question I've been posing, I would be a fool to think my best chance at getting to that result is to convince people to abandon their values. The context in which I most often try to construct persuasive arguments is grounded in a complex system of values. If I tell the judge that those values are wrong or stupid, that's a guaranteed way to lose the argument. Based on my experience, a persuasive argument is most likely to succeed if it is grounded in the values of the person I'm trying to persuade. If I'm right about the indeterminacy of categorical reasoning, then I should be able to start with whatever values a person holds and arrive at the specific result that I am advocating for.

So I agree that, like me, other people hold values and that they are not the same as mine. And I agree that, if I I conclude that the government shouldn't be given the power to make any given decision, I have a burden of persuasion if I want that result to actually happen. I don't think of any of that as "inconvenient." It's simply a problem to be addressed if I want the government to do something or refrain from doing something. When it comes to cultural change, I certainly believe that cultures do change over time. I'm not an expert, but I can't think of an example of a culture that has stayed completely static for generations. I don't think that cultural change is necessarily good or bad, or wise or foolish, or wrong or right. It seems to me that culture sets the ranges of possible at any given time, but that a proposed specific change on a specific issue is more likely to succeed at shifting the boundaries than an attempt to change large parts of the culture. Some changes happen relatively quickly. I would have not expected the cultural reaction to same-sex marriage to change as quickly as it did. Other parts seem pretty impervious to change. Peter Senger makes some interesting arguments about abortion, but a change in culture that make post-birth elective killing of an infant at the discretion of parents is something I would never expect to happen.

I agree 100% that cultural change is messy and that it doesn't turn on dime. Framing a desired result on a specific issue as being consistent with existing culture is, in my opinion, a better tactical approach than demanding wholesale cultural change to accommodate the desired result.

Fundamentally, I'm a pragmatist. But I think it's important to ground my pragmatism on a method of thinking about issues in a way that doesn't limit my assessment of what is possible. That tension is a problem I'm constantly wrestling with. in my opinion, figuring out a principled position on how a given issue should be decided is a different process than evaluating whether reaching that result is possible. Maybe it's similar to how brainstorming works: don't let practical considerations and ideas limit the scope of the range of ideas to be considered. That's similar to what I'm labeling as disempowerment. If I think "there's no way to address it because I'd first have to arrive at a position consistent with dozens of other issues and too many people have different values and cultural change takes time" [again, scare quotes for emphasis] I'll never get around to seriously thinking about "Can I get to what I think is the right result on this specific issue without the issue of consistency limiting the possibilities." Or "can I construct a persuasive argument based on the values held by the people I need to persuade?" Or "Can I frame my arguments in a way that fits within existing culture or requires only a small extension of that culture as opposed to framing them as an all out assault on the existing culture?" That's why I mean by styles of analysis that are disempowering.

Just for emphasis: I completely get that my way of thinking about how to think about issues is very different from yours. That's why I spend time throwing my thoughts out there, reading your responses, and attempting to communicate what I think about what you've said. I don't want to impose on you, so if you think I"m wasting our time because we're talking past each other, I'll have to settle for arguing with my cat.

[Kishkumen]

I have very much enjoyed reading your posts about your methodology, and it is certainly not time wasted. From the beginning, I was looking forward to having one kind of conversation, and I ended up with another. This often happens on the old DM. And, my household is intent on not letting me give full attention to answering the points you raise because, I guess, the holidays are about me giving attention to them starting as soon as I wake up.Thanks for giving me a lot of wonderful food for thought. I think in terms of not having idle discussions your Law and Econ bent, which I encountered first roughly a decade ago, which is all about molding behaviors through shaping choices, is useful, but I also always found it somewhat creepy.

[Res Ipsa]

I have very much enjoyed reading your posts about your methodology, and it is certainly not time wasted. From the beginning, I was looking forward to having one kind of conversation, and I ended up with another. This often happens on the old DM. And, my household is intent on not letting me give full attention to answering the points you raise because, I guess, the holidays are about me giving attention to them starting as soon as I wake up.Thanks for giving me a lot of wonderful food for thought. I think in terms of not having idle discussions your Law and Econ bent, which I encountered first roughly a decade ago, which is all about molding behaviors through shaping choices, is useful, but I also always found it somewhat creepy.

Thanks, Kish. Happy Holidays to you and your family.

[ajax18]

[...] Why hold the psychologist responsible if she's a consenting adult? I

Because he is a psychologist.

Would it make any difference if he were a neurosurgeon or a psychiatrist? This woman regrets it now. Do people who get sex changes or experience infertility due to puberty blockers ever regret their decision later in life?

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Because he is a psychologist.

Would it make any difference if he were a neurosurgeon or a psychiatrist? This woman regrets it now. Do people who get sex changes or experience infertility due to puberty blockers ever regret their decision later in life?

Special pleading.

[Doctor Steuss]

Would it make any difference if he were a neurosurgeon or a psychiatrist?

No. Not if he were acting in a capacity as a medical professional.

This woman regrets it now.

Assuming she's even telling the truth this time in her media attention thirst, but ok.

Do people who get sex changes or experience infertility due to puberty blockers ever regret their decision later in life?

You seem to still be relying on propaganda rather than medical science when it comes to puberty blockers.

People regret lots of things. Much of the time, there's no way to go back in time to change those things. I am lost as to why you are trying to argue that because people regret things, medical professionals shouldn't be subject to ethical and legal codes of conduct.

"People regret tattoos, so it shouldn't be wrong for an optometrist acting in a professional capacity to sew my anus shut."

[ajax18]

"People regret tattoos, so it shouldn't be wrong for an optometrist acting in a professional capacity to sew my anus shut."

Even if it reduces the spread of AIDS amongst a marginalized group of Americans? You'd have to agree that Fauci would approve of me doing this since it would lower the AIDS case count and reduce the strain on the public healthcare system, no?

[canpakes]

"People regret tattoos, so it shouldn't be wrong for an optometrist acting in a professional capacity to sew my anus shut."

Even if it reduces the spread of AIDS amongst a marginalized group of Americans? You'd have to agree that Fauci would approve of me doing this since it would lower the AIDS case count and reduce the strain on the public healthcare system, no?

In this scenario, I’m pretty sure that other dire effects would manifest much more quickly, rendering your question moot.