No worries. Sorry for being defensive. I’ve received death threats before so you can imagine my reticence to speak freely.

Forgive the brevity. The topic is quite personal to me. I had a trans person in my family until recently. They committed suicide. I took it upon myself to research the topic to the best of my abilities. My current stance is that, while I support the right for adults to do with their body as they wish, I do not support the practise of transitioning children; be it medically or socially. In all my research I couldn’t find a single study, anywhere, demonstrating an objective quality of life improvement. These would be measurable metrics like:

• Life expectancy.
• Suicide rate.
• Rates of addiction.
• Health outcomes such as reduced rates of obesity and heart attacks.
• Rates of crime.
• Rates of homelessness.
• Rates of victimisation (rape, assault, etc.).
• Income.
• Wealth.

It’s not for lack of trying, either. I’ve never seen so much funding go to any single topic in academia. Given this lack of evidence, researchers turned to subjective measures of improvement. The primary being “suicidality.” They ask subjects how they feel about suicide. This is an effective proxy for, “are you happy with the major medical procedure you just asked for?” Unsurprisingly, this is subject to enormous bias.

Instead, I found evidence that not transitioning is a much better, much more effective treatment for children. This study found that only 37% of children still identified as dysphoric five years later. This study found that 88% had desisted (they were no longer dysphoric). This mirrors other historical research into various areas of child psychology. Children frequently change identity and beliefs around identity.

The primary arguments appear to be, a) if we don’t transition children, they will commit suicide. As above, I believe this is false. The second premise is, b) puberty blockers are completely reversible. This isn’t true either. These are the expected side effects of puberty blockers:

Common side effects of the GnRH agonists and antagonists include symptoms of hypogonadism such as hot flashes, gynecomastia, fatigue, weight gain, fluid retention, erectile dysfunction and decreased libido. Long term therapy can result in metabolic abnormalities, weight gain, worsening of diabetes and osteoporosis. Rare, but potentially serious adverse events include transient worsening of prostate cancer due to surge in testosterone with initial injection of GnRH agonists and pituitary apoplexy in patients with pituitary adenoma. Single instances of clinically apparent liver injury have been reported with some GnRH agonists (histrelin, goserelin), but the reports were not very convincing. There is no evidence to indicate that there is cross sensitivity to liver injury among the various GnRH analogues despite their similarity in structure. There is also a report that GnRH agonists used in the treatment of advanced prostate cancer may increase the risk of heart problems by 30%.

Osteoporosis and diabetes are absolutely life altering. Sweden went all-in on "temporary" puberty blockers for gender affirming care until children started experiencing life-long injuries. They are now effectively banned for gender affirming care for children.

In one particularly shocking case, a girl who wanted to become a boy began taking hormone-blocking drugs at just 11-years-old. Almost five years after the treatment began, the puberty-pausing drugs induced osteoporosis and permanently damaged the teen’s vertebrae, severely limiting the teen’s mobility.

“When we asked him regularly how his back felt, he said: ‘I’m in pain all the time’,” she added.

Further, there is a growing body of evidence to show high risk of infertility after prolonged use of these drugs.

And these are just the dangerous irreversible side effects. The cosmetic side effects are devastating, and include men with child-sized penises and testicles, and women without breasts. This is one such case. The teenager had taken puberty blockers, resulting in a small penis. With insufficient penile tissue, doctors attempted to remove and use part of his colon to create a fake vagina. He died less than a day later from complications.

Ultimately, I believe I am very open to evidence. I have reached my position precisely by pouring over research. I am open to honest discussion and debate. I don't belittle or minimise anyone's experiences or beliefs. I simply want the best outcomes for children. For this opinion, I have been banned on many subreddits. I have been sent death threats. I have been called every disgusting name in the dictionary, and then more. I hope that Lemmy is a place which allows respectful discussion.

Consider two 5'6" 65kg athletes, one man and one woman, are you saying that the man doesn't have an advantage?

I used to believe the same until I saw the recent Women's Premier League in Cricket. They had to reduce the size of field and the weight of ball. Even with that, the fastest bowl in the tournament was 130kmph while that speed is considered a "slower ball" in men's cricket.

Now some of these female cricketers earm more than any Pakistani male cricketers. Which is fair, bigger market, bigger payout. But female cricketers don't stand a chance against the male cricketers

Every time that “Argument” happens it’s openly done in biologically unfounded ways by people who simply don’t understand how our bodies actually work.

I'll be the first to admit I don't know how our bodies work, but I think explaining it will be more helpful in the long run than just making the subject taboo and banning everyone who asks it.

At the beginning of the pandemic a common argument against masks was "the virus is too small to be caught in a mask" - which made sense from a layman's point of view. When people started explaining that masks did stop the water droplets the virus needs to be airborne - that argument become a lot less common.

Not everybody who has questions is "just asking questions", if you catch my drift.

The Cambridge dictionary definition of bigotry

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/bigotry

the fact of having and expressing strong, unreasonable beliefs and disliking other people who have different beliefs or a different way of life

Beliefs can be changed. Beliefs are just opinions really.

The thing that irritates me about this comment and the ideology your subreddit represents (well, the pertinent thing) is that the popular world "polarization" obfuscates the massive difference there is between radicalism and dogmatism. That is to say, when two people disagree politically, some people like to imagine for various reasons that their level of animosity is a function of how different their political views are plus some ability to compartmentalize. These things are factors, but ones that lead to political illiteracy on their own.

Dogmatism is the common word for having a circumscribed set of "correct beliefs" and being hostile to any deviation from that set. Radicalism is the sheer extremity of one's views. It's entirely possible to be a radical and to be accepting of people, and it's quite easy to be both a centrist and a dogmatist. We know that second one because that describes a huge portion of the Democratic base! They are people with very little commitment to progressivism who nonetheless are deeply hostile to people on both their left as well as their right.

Of course, sometimes the two traits coincide, like in the Republicans, which have a massive portion of their base that is both pretty radical and pretty dogmatic -- though ironically they could be said to be accepting in an extraordinarily cynical way, what with how Evangelicals supported Trump, who is literally the fakest Christian to ever be President ("Two Corinthians").

Anyway, my point for saying this is that hucksters, useful idiots, and some who I'm sure are good people like to characterize American politics as a situation where there has been a sizable shift towards radicalism. There are new radical (QAnon) and "radical" (Bernie socdem) movements today as there are in any age, but overwhelmingly the Democrats have been getting more conservative if you look past their lip-service, while the Republicans have mostly also become more conservative. The world doesn't need more centrists, the Democratic Party has plenty! When Obama said he's "less liberal in a lot of ways" than Richard Nixon, that wasn't his attempt at absurdist humor!

What would actually be useful is functional empathy and -- god forbid -- a political ideology that has some ability to explain why people have political differences beyond some puritanical insinuation about moral failings. That does not mean we need to be nihilistic or appeasing with our actual political ideology as though nothing is true or else the truth is the median of whatever everyone happens to believe right now.

Paraphrasing Lafayette, "If the world is divided between people who say 2 + 2 is 6 and those who say 2 + 2 is 4, that does not make it the most reasonable position that 2 + 2 is 5."

If I was writing it, I'd probably say that the camps in America are "4+4 is 44" and "4+4 is 64", with "4+4 is 54" being the Enlightened Centrist answer (and ironically perhaps the most deeply irrational).