The Aarons and I talk about all kinds of things: the WHO, the New York Times’ reporting on detransition and regret, and what we’ve learned from our experiences on the inside of gender medicine:
Good conversation ,great to hear from sensible trans people. Unfortunately I share and fear Eliza's view that it's unlikely there will be reckoning for gender affirming care. Alberta Canada's Premier Danielle Smith's transgender guidelines are compassionate,completely reasonable and make perfect sense. She soon came under attack by activist bullies,enabled by a fawning media,politicians,educators and medical professionals who are more aligned to enforcing the gender political agenda, than the welfare of a person who believes changing gender is the miracle to solve their preexisting conditions. Gender ideology, opposite sex hormones, puberty blockers, surgical removal of healthy organs,etc. are more likely to add emotional burdens and medical complications to a person with pre existing comorbidities rather than alleviating them. Our society needs to know gender affirming care is risky and truth when presented with dignity and respect is essential.
I am more than half-way through this. It's a great conversation. I so appreciate that you are all pointing out the recklessness of the current medical model.
I would love to hear more on the issue of who is actually helped by medical transition and what that means. I hope I don't sound callous when I make this analogy and say that I think many people who get rhinoplasties would state unambiguously how happy they are with the surgery (assuming it was not messed up), and that they feel better about their self-image and how they move through the world afterward. I would still argue (and I think most people would agree) that these are cosmetic surgeries, not treatments for a medical condition, and therefore should not be covered by insurance (private or public). I would also argue that it would be a better outcome of people could accept their noses (or faces, or breasts or butts or whatever) how they are and appreciate the beauty in the variation (assuming no functional issues, of course, and nothing so outrageously odd as to make it difficult for other people to not be distracted, which is arguably a medical condition). I would never argue for making these surgeries illegal, but would argue that they should not be encouraged.
Similarly, transition may very well make some people feel better about themselves and have a better self-image, and they may not regret the changes to their bodies (although studies show that a large number of people who have medically transitioned, before the current cohort, are not happy at all). I see these as cosmetic treatments. I do understand that there is a mental health issue involved; namely, gender dysphoria, which can be debilitating - although the current activists seem to want to deny that. However, I am loathe to simply cave to the notion that the only treatment for gender dysphoria, even assuming it is not socially induced (as it definitely is for so many of the young cohort), and even assuming the person is able to fully consent to any procedures, is medical transition. I would think most people - maybe all if it is done right and with the right outside support - can come to accept their bodies as they are with some form of therapy. I would also argue that this would be a "better" outcome, given the medical challenges and difficulties of trying to "pass."
Is this a subject the Aarons would be willing to tackle? I would love to get their take on the medical necessity for transition. I think they are amazing and have the deepest respect for what they are doing.
Good conversation ,great to hear from sensible trans people. Unfortunately I share and fear Eliza's view that it's unlikely there will be reckoning for gender affirming care. Alberta Canada's Premier Danielle Smith's transgender guidelines are compassionate,completely reasonable and make perfect sense. She soon came under attack by activist bullies,enabled by a fawning media,politicians,educators and medical professionals who are more aligned to enforcing the gender political agenda, than the welfare of a person who believes changing gender is the miracle to solve their preexisting conditions. Gender ideology, opposite sex hormones, puberty blockers, surgical removal of healthy organs,etc. are more likely to add emotional burdens and medical complications to a person with pre existing comorbidities rather than alleviating them. Our society needs to know gender affirming care is risky and truth when presented with dignity and respect is essential.
I am more than half-way through this. It's a great conversation. I so appreciate that you are all pointing out the recklessness of the current medical model.
I would love to hear more on the issue of who is actually helped by medical transition and what that means. I hope I don't sound callous when I make this analogy and say that I think many people who get rhinoplasties would state unambiguously how happy they are with the surgery (assuming it was not messed up), and that they feel better about their self-image and how they move through the world afterward. I would still argue (and I think most people would agree) that these are cosmetic surgeries, not treatments for a medical condition, and therefore should not be covered by insurance (private or public). I would also argue that it would be a better outcome of people could accept their noses (or faces, or breasts or butts or whatever) how they are and appreciate the beauty in the variation (assuming no functional issues, of course, and nothing so outrageously odd as to make it difficult for other people to not be distracted, which is arguably a medical condition). I would never argue for making these surgeries illegal, but would argue that they should not be encouraged.
Similarly, transition may very well make some people feel better about themselves and have a better self-image, and they may not regret the changes to their bodies (although studies show that a large number of people who have medically transitioned, before the current cohort, are not happy at all). I see these as cosmetic treatments. I do understand that there is a mental health issue involved; namely, gender dysphoria, which can be debilitating - although the current activists seem to want to deny that. However, I am loathe to simply cave to the notion that the only treatment for gender dysphoria, even assuming it is not socially induced (as it definitely is for so many of the young cohort), and even assuming the person is able to fully consent to any procedures, is medical transition. I would think most people - maybe all if it is done right and with the right outside support - can come to accept their bodies as they are with some form of therapy. I would also argue that this would be a "better" outcome, given the medical challenges and difficulties of trying to "pass."
Is this a subject the Aarons would be willing to tackle? I would love to get their take on the medical necessity for transition. I think they are amazing and have the deepest respect for what they are doing.