Is being Transgender a choice?

[AgnosticBoy]

I'm of the opinion that gender expression is a result of social conditioning. I know I used the word "choice" in the title, but that's only because people tend to associate behavior that can be changed or conditioned as being a "choice" (borrowing from the debate on born this way vs. choice).

In this thread, I want to focus on being transgender. Based on my above opinion, I also believe that being transgender is also a result of social conditioning (i.e. childhood experiences, what they learn from society, etc). If I'm right then I think that the recent focus on transgenderism in the media, in Hollywood, in schools, could lead some children to become transgender. And there is nothing wrong with that.

I also bring these points up because when some parents complain about their kids learning about transgenderism in school, the reaction is that it won't impact (some say "groom" ) the child into becoming transgender. If my view is correct, I think the pro-trans crowd should acknowledge that it can potentially influence children AND there's nothing wrong with that.

For Debate
1. Is being transgender a result of social conditioning?
2. Edit: Removed. Teaching kids about gender identity can be a separate thread.

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to brunumb in post #70]

Even if there are cases of minors being forced to convert, this has nothing to do with the conversation.

This is the classic "poisoning the well with red herrings and slippery slopes and non sequiturs"

This is is how they argued against homosexuality: they brought pedophilia and beastiality into it.

It's the same strategy they use now.

We are talking about legitimate examples. However, some people don't agree with the legitimate examples. They don't want people to be like that. It offends them. They feel their rights are trampled if someone is happy doing something that disgusts them.

[Purple Knight]

I did not discuss any actions beyond the halting of sexual development.

In your imagined case a child is encouraged to accept a surgery. There won't be any cases that you can find. A lot of steps have to be undertaken before any surgery can take place and the age of the child can halt such procedures, where I live.

Surgery or hormones. They admit hormones of the opposite sex make you sterile.

People have posted cases of regretters. Detransitioners are a thing and they can have regrets. Chloe Cole is one of them. If you think the child is fundamentally not competent to make its own choices about things it can't possibly understand yet (like things that involve sex) because it is a child, no amount of steps will remedy that. Only turning into an adult and acquiring that understanding, will.

Is there an amount of steps that would convince you a child understands the risks and benefits of smoking and should be allowed to weigh them for itself, and ultimately, choose to smoke if it so desires? Most people will say no to that.

That's why I asked what you think is fair to do with those who now feel that they were not correct that they were trans, and took steps while children, under professional advice, that cannot be reversed.

Even if there are cases of minors being forced to convert, this has nothing to do with the conversation.

It has to do with the conversation because the reason they can be easily forced is that they are children. They aren't in possession of the full faculties of an adult and their defence against coercion is essentially non-existent. I don't see how you can, in the same breath, admit there are good reasons to prohibit acts of paedophilia, and defend children being allowed to make their own choices about something else that is also fundamentally sexual. The whole reason we don't let children decide to have sex, is because they are likely to be coerced. Because they are children. There might be some children who not only desire sex, but would be better off if they had sex. Too bad for them. They might easily be coerced so we say no.

(I always end up defending the conservative side even though I do not agree with it, because society says these things about children, essentially classifying them as subhumans, and Leftists never disagree with it unless it is a specific disagreement that happens to be popular.)

[oldbadger]

[Replying to brunumb in post #70]

Even if there are cases of minors being forced to convert, this has nothing to do with the conversation.

This is the classic "poisoning the well with red herrings and slippery slopes and non sequiturs"

This is is how they argued against homosexuality: they brought pedophilia and beastiality into it.

It's the same strategy they use now.

We are talking about legitimate examples. However, some people don't agree with the legitimate examples. They don't want people to be like that. It offends them. They feel their rights are trampled if someone is happy doing something that disgusts them.

This........^^^^^^^^

[oldbadger]

Surgery or hormones. They admit hormones of the opposite sex make you sterile.

People have posted cases of regretters. Detransitioners are a thing and they can have regrets. Chloe Cole is one of them. If you think the child is fundamentally not competent to make its own choices about things it can't possibly understand yet (like things that involve sex) because it is a child, no amount of steps will remedy that. Only turning into an adult and acquiring that understanding, will.

Chloe Cole was 12yrs when she was initially treated on the path to transgendering. And because she decoded to do something else (at 17yrs) she now calls out for the wishes of all young people to be dismissed. How useful for the transphobics, eh?

Is there an amount of steps that would convince you a child understands the risks and benefits of smoking and should be allowed to weigh them for itself, and ultimately, choose to smoke if it so desires? Most people will say no to that.

Different subject. Would you like to start a thread about that?

That's why I asked what you think is fair to do with those who now feel that they were not correct that they were trans, and took steps while children, under professional advice, that cannot be reversed.

You could carry out a survey to find out how many youths desperately want to transfer gender and found happiness there, and how many changed their minds and then wanted to blame everybody ?
You like freedom of speech and most everything else for yourself, so I can't see you trying to dominate and control the wishes of other young people who are fast approaching sexual development and are desperate to stop it.

[boatsnguitars]

Even if there are cases of minors being forced to convert, this has nothing to do with the conversation.

It has to do with the conversation because the reason they can be easily forced is that they are children. They aren't in possession of the full faculties of an adult and their defence against coercion is essentially non-existent. I don't see how you can, in the same breath, admit there are good reasons to prohibit acts of paedophilia, and defend children being allowed to make their own choices about something else that is also fundamentally sexual. The whole reason we don't let children decide to have sex, is because they are likely to be coerced. Because they are children. There might be some children who not only desire sex, but would be better off if they had sex. Too bad for them. They might easily be coerced so we say no.

(I always end up defending the conservative side even though I do not agree with it, because society says these things about children, essentially classifying them as subhumans, and Leftists never disagree with it unless it is a specific disagreement that happens to be popular.)

The reason it isn't part of the conversation is, for example:

In a case where a child is born with both genitalia, or undeveloped sex organs, and shows, over the years, a clear preference for a gender. In this scenario, they generally provide puberty blockers to allow the the child to reach a certain age to be certain. Clearly, there is a need to start the appropriate hormones, or even surgery, early. This is to allow the person (who will be adult for most of their lives) to live the fullest life (in their opinion). (Clearly, we could stop the stigmatizing of intersex people, but there is obviously more to gender dysphoria then that).

So, this seems an obvious and legitimate case where we wouldn't want a law banning such a practice, and is exactly why we need laws to protect these cases.

In fact, the medical community generally has a "first, do no harm" policy, so they are clearly trying to do the right thing and not do harm.

The exceptions are exceptions.

Take any medical procedure that isn't controversial. There are many cases where doctors or parents do what is wrong for the child or patient. They are clearly wrong in those instances, which means - if something is wrong, it's wrong. But, when we discuss larger issues, like weight loss surgery, we don't argue against the practice because of some abuses.

It's fine to talk about what shouldn't be allowed, but my fear is that the conversation is dominated by the exceptions and causing people to reject the entire idea of gender dysphoria.

Plus, while we laypersons can talk about it, wouldn't we really want to leave this up to the doctors, parents and patients? It seems such a sordid thing for us to weigh in on whether someone can have a medical procedure or not. Should we also say whether thy can have other surgeries?

More to the point: what procedure do "you" (you, in general) need that you want us to discuss whether or not you should be allowed to have it? Maybe society doesn't like that you want to have that deviated septum fixed, or your appendix removed? Or those cataracts corrected? Or your heart valve worked on? Or maybe society doesn't want you to take anti-depressants, or ADHD drugs?

This seems a clear case, custom-built for the Right Wing to get up in arms about: kids, gender, sex, control, etc. It's a perfect wedge issue for Conservative Christians to get on soapboxes for.

[historia]

It's fine to talk about what shouldn't be allowed, but my fear is that the conversation is dominated by the exceptions and causing people to reject the entire idea of gender dysphoria.

Which participants in this thread have "rejected the entire idea of gender dysphoria"?

Plus, while we laypersons can talk about it, wouldn't we really want to leave this up to the doctors, parents and patients?

Shouldn't medical boards also have a say in what medical procedures are allowed and under what circumstances?

[historia]

Chloe Cole was 12yrs when she was initially treated on the path to transgendering. And because she decoded to do something else (at 17yrs) she now calls out for the wishes of all young people to be dismissed.

Where has Cole indicated that the "wishes of all young people should be dismissed"?

She is simply calling for the United States to adopt the same policy that is currently in place in the United Kingdom and the Nordic countries. What's wrong with that?

I can't see you trying to dominate and control the wishes of other young people who are fast approaching sexual development and are desperate to stop it.

We have over 50 years of long-term studies showing that on average 80% of children who experience gender dysphoria will naturally grow out of it as they go through puberty.

Given that data, do you think we should simply affirm the "wishes" of every 12-year old who wants to take off-label drugs to halt puberty, even though there is increasing evidence that those drugs can have permanent negative health consequences?

[boatsnguitars]

... do you think we should simply affirm the "wishes" of every 12-year old who wants to take off-label drugs to halt puberty, even though there is increasing evidence that those drugs can have permanent negative health consequences?

Where is this happening, at all?

This is exactly what I am talking about. People like you are trying to get in people's personal business.

Tell us your medical history, please, let us all discuss whether or not we should allow you to take medications, get procedures, etc.

Come on, you seem to love talking about other people, be consistent and tell us your private medical issues. And I don't mean by posting it here. Please provide direct access to your medical records throughout your life.

Let's see how that goes over.

[Purple Knight]

Chloe Cole was 12yrs when she was initially treated on the path to transgendering. And because she decoded to do something else (at 17yrs) she now calls out for the wishes of all young people to be dismissed. How useful for the transphobics, eh?

Not useful at all because I'm asking about a world where we accept letting people start that path as children. I'm not saying Chloe Cole is correct to want to deny people access to transitions. I'm asking what we do with people like her who feel they were misled. Just as you would have me assume transgender people are being honest and not out to reap social status from catching people misgendering them (which I'm sure the vast majority are) I would have you assume that not every last detransitioner who feels they were robbed of something is an evil lying transphobe out to ban transitioning. I'm asking you an honest question about whether these people can be awarded damages or not, in your thinking, and why.

Is there an amount of steps that would convince you a child understands the risks and benefits of smoking and should be allowed to weigh them for itself, and ultimately, choose to smoke if it so desires? Most people will say no to that.

Different subject. Would you like to start a thread about that?

It matters because it's related to this subject. I want to know if you think children are competent to decide and accept life-altering consequences in general, or only in a specific case. I think children should be allowed to smoke, vote, even maybe have sex if they prove they understand the risks, and I've always said so, but no one agrees with me, specifically because everyone believes children are incompetent to accept life-altering consequences, and that even in the case that it might help them, others need to shield them from those consequences at the potential expense of the happiness of the child. If you believe some number of proper steps can make a child competent to accept life-altering consequences, when the thing that makes it incompetent is that it is a child, then that logic should apply to more than one situation.

That's why I asked what you think is fair to do with those who now feel that they were not correct that they were trans, and took steps while children, under professional advice, that cannot be reversed.

You could carry out a survey to find out how many youths desperately want to transfer gender and found happiness there, and how many changed their minds and then wanted to blame everybody ?
You like freedom of speech and most everything else for yourself, so I can't see you trying to dominate and control the wishes of other young people who are fast approaching sexual development and are desperate to stop it.

I wouldn't. So I'll ask you again, what is proper to do with detransitioners who feel that they were misled when they were vulnerable children? Should they be allowed to be awarded damages? I don't see that it matters how many other people were happy with it. You have the right to leave people alone even if that will make them sad, but in order to give a medical procedure, you need not only consent, but informed consent. If I cut up Bob and make him happy, it doesn't matter that it turned out to be the correct thing to do; if I did not obtain informed consent, I am going to be most probably stripped of my license. If this status quo is morally incorrect, there's nothing wrong with saying so. I'm saying so now.

Though I don't think it of anyone on this forum, I can't shake the feeling that support for a certain thing that happens to be popular, occurs in the majority of the populace for the sole reason that they want to be popular, so while these vacillating masses will support the popular position and denounce the unpopular position as immoral, horrible, rights-violating and wrong, they will never follow through on the logic that they say upholds their position and apply it to other cases if that means they would have to support an unpopular position. Maybe I'm wrong about this, and maybe there's another reason for this behaviour. But I don't think we can model an equal society on inconsistency and dodging, because an equal society is a fair one that extends rights we uphold as true, as far as they logically extend, not just where they're popular.

It also doesn't help people fit into a moral society whose brains are structured to be logical, rather than social. And in a moral society, we want to help people understand what is moral, so they will do it, not deny them that understanding, right? Because if they don't understand what is moral and why, how can you expect them to support and do what is moral? If the goal is social status, then it's a perfect move, but if these rights that make the unpopular position morally wrong are real, and we want people to stop violating them, it's necessary to explain the machinery of how these rights work, when they apply, when they don't, and why.

[Purple Knight]

Tell us your medical history, please, let us all discuss whether or not we should allow you to take medications, get procedures, etc.

I am a twelve-year-old genius kid with Aspergers and a heart murmur who wants to smoke because I think it will make me happy.

I am willing to spend six months proving I am competent. I will start with a nicotine patch, use it for three months, prove to you I can quit, and prove to you that I have quit for three months. Then I want my cigarettes.

By that I mean, I want you, as a part of the society that upholds good laws and tears down bad ones, to support my right to smoke if I prove I understand the risks.