In relation to the recent Indiana ban for transgender youth care, some thoughts that I think have a broader outlook as rebuttals of a commonly held trope that adolescents can’t give medical consent to gender treatment.

Also consider this BBC article about a judge deciding under 16s might not be able to consent to gender care in the UK AFAIK this had been later overturned on appeal . As for one of the cases explored in the dishonest Reuters article debunked by Vaush it turns out one of the cases (the trans boy one) under Ontario laws where he lives, he had medical consent since he was 15. So Why is it different for transgender care specifically?

Here are my thoughts:

Adolescents presented as “technically kids” always gets my gears grinding, since it is dishonest to equate adolescents and children on so many levels. For example they might have medical consent which should be enough. They might drive in some places, and also they can have intimate relations to another adolescent. Toddlers can’t do any of that. There are grades of consent that are legally and rationally different between adolescents and kids, so “technically a kid” is a far fetch, a dishonest prevarication, and just plain wrong on so many levels.

They just don’t say that when kids of essentially the same age are allowed to get married and become “technically” parents. They don’t say a word for actual infant mutilation in the cases of intersex genital normalization surgeries, nor circumcision. They did not get out of the way to ban breast enhancement in teenage cis girls. They just never fucking uttered “they are technically kids” in any of these equivalent cases.

And there is another underlying problem, that most advocates fail to bring up while they are distracted by bullshit like the “technically kids” fallacy. That in contrast to strictly sexual orientation and needs that start during and after puberty, gender identity is something that manifests way earlier, typically in early childhood. This is extensively documented before the 2020s craze with transgender condemnation.

Mind you, transphobes have dealt with and exploited this fact for a long time. It is not that they do not know it. They do, but they strategically suppress it all the same. There are at least two ways they know and leverage this fact: in separating trans people into genuine and fake, like with the “homosexual transexual” pseudoscience; and in developing and popularizing concepts of social contagion of transgender ideation in adolescent. Even though implicitly, both notions require that true transexuals manifest themselves during childhood, but none of the real trans people we hear about are true trans. This is in turn the True Scotsman fallacy.

  • OneMeaningManyNames@lemmy.mlOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 days ago

    I’m just figuring it out in my 30s

    I understand this. I did not advocate for the “true trans” theory. I point out that it is used for gatekeeping. All those people coming out in their 30s and 40s are valid as well. Some may have been consciously closeting themselves, others might have been misled by extreme gender normalization. I think some might also have overcompensated, like Chelsea Manning said she joined the military to overcompensate being trans.

    There are people who were dragged to psychiatrists like Kenneth Zucker: he and his PhD students used to publish and review tens of studies with GNC kids and present statistics of “persisters” and “desisters”.

    The sample sizes of these studies were typically in the hundreds. Who knows how many of those kids were subjected to some kind of conversion therapy? Many come out now and say they had been talked out of it by doctors and others. The figures alone speak of the real volume of GNC expression in childhood.

    (This is not to mean that every GNC child is trans. This simply isn’t true. But some are!)

    There are also people who have fallen prey to the homosexual transexual / AGP gatekeeping, and have themselves thought they weren’t “true trans”, like the guy in the transfem literature novel Nevada.

    But who is counting? Republicans have moved the goal posts of this discussion to a degree that to the average person it just sound insane to “push hormones and surgery onto a kid” because they played with a doll like once or sth. They say that this could not be happening if the Democrats were not evil lizard people and so powerful that medical organizations parrot their insane talking points.

    So there is that. To sum up, I am making a list of the above reasons a person possibly does not realize/come out as early as psychologists say gender identity is formed:

    • behavior normalization efforts from the parents
    • psychiatric intervention in childhood
    • self gatekeeping
    • overcompensation
    • knowing but being closeted because of averse reactions of parents/peers to GNC behavior, anticipation of averse social outcomes [1]
    • outright conversion intervention
    • denial
    • not having realized due to lack of representation, lack of a conceptual framework, or overly negative representation of trans people [2]

    1. These might be different points, I am not sure. ↩︎

    2. I dully note this for reference, they might be overlapping with denial, I am not sure either. ↩︎