Daniel Peterson: "Gender Ideology Harms Children"

[_just me]

I can totally believe and acknowledge that the organization in question in really a political advocacy group. That said, I'm not sure I disagree that much with the particular statement they released.

They are talking about medical interventions on children on the basis of the belief that the biological sex the child was born into is somehow a medical problem to be dealt with using drugs or surgery or whatever. I'm uncomfortable with that too.

Children who use puberty blockers to impersonate the opposite sex will require cross-sex hormones in late adolescence. Cross-sex hormones (testosterone and estrogen) are associated with dangerous health risks including but not limited to high blood pressure, blood clots, stroke and cancer.

One might well object to the use of the word "impersonate," so strike that word if you must and replace it with one you deem more accurate or less offensive, but the medical ethical dilemma still remains: is it medically ethical to subject pre-pubescent children to puberty blockers and sex hormone treatments which might (if their references are correct) bring with them substantial health risks?

If an adult wants to subject themselves to such treatments who I am to say they shouldn't, so long as they are adequately informed and take the responsibility for their decisions personally? But is a child really competent to make such decisions? And is it ethical for parents to make that decision for the child? I very dubious about that.

Again, though, I admit I don't fully understand all of the conflicting claims and ideologies of the whole transgender question. I don't think there is one single ideology against another single ideology. It seems to me more like a morass of various beliefs not easily dissected into two ideologically pure camps.

According to the article I linked, puberty blockers are often used in children who start puberty when they are younger than 8 or 9. Do you think that this is an unethical thing for doctors to do? I do not find this to be problematic. Since I don't have a problem with blocking puberty in a 7 year old I also think it is okay for an 11 year old child who has gender dysphoria.

When a baby is born with ambiguous sex parts a penis or vagina is often chosen for them (usually a vagina because it is easier). Do you think this is an unethical thing for surgeons to do? I do. I actually think we should learn to accept ambiguity and allow children to decide what they want sometime in adolescence. There's no reason to treat a 5 year old boy differently than a 5 year old girl, anyway.

[_VNephi]

Puberty blockers are started around age 10-12. This pauses things and gives the child time to decide if transitioning is right for them. They used to not start cross-sex hormones until 16, but they are starting as young as 13 in some cases, it sounds like.

This seems like a reasonable enough method to use with our current knowledge on the matter. It at least gives some time to children to be certain before beginning the process properly.

That being said, I still think a lot of care needs to be taken with handling gender identity with children; I think there's potential risk during the early developmental stages for children to assume themselves to be transgender for an overly simple reason, without fully comprehending it. Ultimately I trust any medical professionals involved in such cases to make the right judgement, but simultaneously I think it's an issue children don't need to get too wrapped up in at an age below the 10-12 range.

[Reflexzero]

If at 8 years old, a child can be held accountable with their eternal salvation and something as monumental as the existence and mission of the Creator of the entire cosmos… why can't they be trusted with their own gender?

[Guest]

.

[_Sethbag]

According to the article I linked,

I linked it first. :-)

puberty blockers are often used in children who start puberty when they are younger than 8 or 9. Do you think that this is an unethical thing for doctors to do?

It's probably fine, since presumably they are off those blockers by the time they hit the usual puberty age, and their puberty resumes its natural course. The question is, and I'm asking because I don't know, if a child who has gender dysphoria takes puberty blockers from, say, 12 until 17 or 18 years of age, do they subsequently experience a normal puberty at 18? I don't know, and I think it matters. If the use of such blockers makes a full puberty transition impossible after some age, then I think it's problematic to use them on children.

I do not find this to be problematic. Since I don't have a problem with blocking puberty in a 7 year old I also think it is okay for an 11 year old child who has gender dysphoria.

Since they aren't the same thing, I'm not sure the equation works, particularly not if the consequences aren't the same. A 7-year-old blocking puberty until age 12, then undergoing normal puberty, would not be the same thing as a child blocking puberty until age 17 or 18, and then not being able to undergo a full sexual maturation, if that is indeed a consequence of it. I don't know if it is or not.

When a baby is born with ambiguous sex parts a penis or vagina is often chosen for them (usually a vagina because it is easier). Do you think this is an unethical thing for surgeons to do? I do.

I don't know if I do or not. That's a more difficult question, because actual physical abnormality is involved. Without more information, I'd probably lean toward XX children getting a vagina and XY children getting a penis simply because that's the usual arrangement with those genes, and would probably represent an improvement in the child's circumstances. But I admit I know that such things happen, but I don't know enough about the genetic or epigenetic causes of these conditions to be sure of an opinion on it.

I actually think we should learn to accept ambiguity and allow children to decide what they want sometime in adolescence. There's no reason to treat a 5 year old boy differently than a 5 year old girl, anyway.

I agree about ambiguity, and the way we treat the two sexes. I'm not sure at what age a person should really be deemed competent to make long-lasting medical decisions. Not sure how great this analogy is, but if we don't let 17-year olds get a tattoo, I'm not sure it makes sense to let 13-year olds decide to take sex hormones to develop physical sexual characteristics of the opposite gender. Again, with adults, it's game on.

[_Sethbag]

Men with a penis and testicles but who dress up as women claiming the right to use female public restrooms, because they claim to identify as women? I'm not sure I'm down with that.

Seth, this is not a rhetorical question but do you actually know any transgender people?

Some of my best friends are transgender... Just kidding. No, actually I don't know any transgender people, which either means I'm sheltered, or they just are awesome at it.

i find that these things are a lot easier to understand in the concrete than in the abstract. here literally the first video i ran across online with some trans people talking about their experience -- maybe it will help:
https://vimeo.com/101762111

-joelb

I'll see about watching it. I agree that when things are humanized it can change minds. I suppose in the grand scheme of things we're immature as a society when we're so wrapped around the axle about sex that we need segregated bathrooms to begin with. Since we are, though, I'm sensitive to the feelings of those who would be very uncomfortable about someone of the opposite biological sex using the bathroom from the sex for which that room was designated. If the short answer is: "deal with it," that pretty much wrecks the whole justification for segregated bathrooms at all, and maybe it should just all be one room with a bunch of stalls in it, and maybe some urinals around a corner or something.

[_Sethbag]

If at 8 years old, a child can be held accountable with their eternal salvation and something as monumental as the existence and mission of the Creator of the entire cosmos… why can't they be trusted with their own gender?

False premise. :-)

[_just me]

According to the article I linked,

I linked it first. :-)

My bad. I just meant the link in my PP was what I was talking about.

puberty blockers are often used in children who start puberty when they are younger than 8 or 9. Do you think that this is an unethical thing for doctors to do?

It's probably fine, since presumably they are off those blockers by the time they hit the usual puberty age, and their puberty resumes its natural course. The question is, and I'm asking because I don't know, if a child who has gender dysphoria takes puberty blockers from, say, 12 until 17 or 18 years of age, do they subsequently experience a normal puberty at 18? I don't know, and I think it matters. If the use of such blockers makes a full puberty transition impossible after some age, then I think it's problematic to use them on children.

My imperfect understanding is that puberty blockers are not used until that late for gender dysmorphia. It would be more like a couple years. I haven't heard or read anything to indicate it would prevent a full, natural puberty to occur...though a female may end up being taller than she would have naturally.

I know natal females who didn't start their periods until age 17 or even later. I know lots of natal males who don't finish growing until they are 25. So, we're still not outside the realm of "normal" even if it isn't average.

Given what the medical and science field have to say about this topic, it seems that giving a child a blocker for a couple years to figure things out is the least intrusive/most helpful thing.

I do not find this to be problematic. Since I don't have a problem with blocking puberty in a 7 year old I also think it is okay for an 11 year old child who has gender dysphoria.

Since they aren't the same thing, I'm not sure the equation works, particularly not if the consequences aren't the same. A 7-year-old blocking puberty until age 12, then undergoing normal puberty, would not be the same thing as a child blocking puberty until age 17 or 18, and then not being able to undergo a full sexual maturation, if that is indeed a consequence of it. I don't know if it is or not.

Do you have a reason to think that children are taking the blockers until age 17 or 18 and failing to achieve full sexual maturation because of it? Because otherwise it seems like we're just making up things to be worried about.

When a baby is born with ambiguous sex parts a penis or vagina is often chosen for them (usually a vagina because it is easier). Do you think this is an unethical thing for surgeons to do? I do.

I don't know if I do or not. That's a more difficult question, because actual physical abnormality is involved. Without more information, I'd probably lean toward XX children getting a vagina and XY children getting a penis simply because that's the usual arrangement with those genes, and would probably represent an improvement in the child's circumstances. But I admit I know that such things happen, but I don't know enough about the genetic or epigenetic causes of these conditions to be sure of an opinion on it.

What if the baby had one of the intersex conditions that does not have a simple XX or XY chromosome? Anyway, my point just being that it's not so binary as we'd like it to be.

I actually think we should learn to accept ambiguity and allow children to decide what they want sometime in adolescence. There's no reason to treat a 5 year old boy differently than a 5 year old girl, anyway.

I agree about ambiguity, and the way we treat the two sexes. I'm not sure at what age a person should really be deemed competent to make long-lasting medical decisions. Not sure how great this analogy is, but if we don't let 17-year olds get a tattoo, I'm not sure it makes sense to let 13-year olds decide to take sex hormones to develop physical sexual characteristics of the opposite gender. Again, with adults, it's game on.

Do you think it is unethical to allow 14 year old females to take Birth Control pills or get IUD's? Those mess with hormones and do have some risk involved. For that matter, getting pregnant and giving birth is a VERY life altering and health altering decision that teenagers make every day.

I think that it is too bad that children do have to make very adult decisions sometimes, but I just don't think it is always preventable. In that case, we need to continue to do what does the least amount of damage on a case by case basis and learn from the results. Sadly, mistakes have been made and will probably continue to be made.

[Anonymous]

Do you have a reason to think that children are taking the blockers until age 17 or 18 and failing to achieve full sexual maturation because of it? Because otherwise it seems like we're just making up things to be worried about.

The articles we read suggested that previously the hormones weren't given until a later age, like 17 or 18, but now are starting to be given to such children at younger ages, like 13 or 14. If the blockers were given, but the hormones weren't given until 17 or 18, then yeah I suppose that happens. I have no idea how common any of this is.

What if the baby had one of the intersex conditions that does not have a simple XX or XY chromosome? Anyway, my point just being that it's not so binary as we'd like it to be.

Yeah, there are plenty of unusual cases. One I read about was a woman who actually didn't discover she had XY chromosomes until fertility testing was done when she had difficulty conceiving. Turns out she had some condition that made her resistant to testosterone or something like that, and so developed fully with complete female sex organs and whatnot, just the ovaries didn't work quite right. In these cases it's really impossible to assert some kind of principled single stance other than just hope the families work things out and that people are treated respectfully.

ETA: I don't have a problem referring to the XY woman as "she" because she in fact developed fully into a woman, with complete female sex organs and everything else. I still have a problem referring to Kaitlin Jenner as "she" though. Maybe I'm just a trogladite or something.

Do you think it is unethical to allow 14 year old females to take Birth Control pills or get IUD's? Those mess with hormones and do have some risk involved. For that matter, getting pregnant and giving birth is a VERY life altering and health altering decision that teenagers make every day.

As far as girls getting pregnant and giving birth at a young age, laws governing age of consent attempt to prevent this sort of thing precisely because children aren't considered old enough yet to make such decisions, but biology is biology, and kids have always, and will always mess around and get pregnant. Can't really legislate that, as much as some would like to.

Not really the same thing as administering hormones at young teen years deliberately to alter the sexual development and maturation of a child's body.

I think that it is too bad that children do have to make very adult decisions sometimes, but I just don't think it is always preventable. In that case, we need to continue to do what does the least amount of damage on a case by case basis and learn from the results. Sadly, mistakes have been made and will probably continue to be made.

Agreed. I'm just not sure that "I know I have a penis, but I really think I'm a girl and would like my body changed into as close to that of a biological girl as possible" is really a decision we should be regarding children as sufficiently mature and competent to make.

[_EAllusion]

See here:

viewtopic.php?p=886996#p886996

When you read this, you'd think that the American College of Pediatricians is a blue chip organization expressing the collective viewpoint of an emerging consensus from researchers. What it actually represents is a social conservative organization founded in opposition to homosexual adoption. You might as well quote the Family Research Council for all the scholarly worth it has. The way it is offered in the context of this essay, it is highly misleading. The American Academy of Pediatrics is the actual mainstream professional association of pediatricians.

I wrote this in response to an anti-gay Deseret News Op-Ed attempting to cite the American College of Pediatricians as if it was sharing the views of a mainstream academic body. DCP is doing the same. It was misleading then and it is now.