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.

[historia]

I've bolded the claim: we should simply affirm the "wishes" of every 12-year old who wants to take off-label drugs to halt puberty

So, that was not a claim, but originally a question to oldbadger.

He suggested above that denying puberty blockers to any young child who really wants them somehow constitutes an unfair "domination and control" of their "wishes." So I am asking him a clarifying question to see whether he thinks we should simply affirm the wishes of any 12-year old who really wants to take such drugs, even though there is a lack of evidence for both their efficacy and safety.

Let's let him answer.

Can you at least admit it's not EVERY 12 year old wanting puberty blockers?

Of course not every 12 year old wants to take puberty blockers.

After all, it seems the doctors have already done the studies and found results. You seem to believe them there, but not when they agree to puberty blockers, etc.

Right, so the real question here is who should make the determination of what psychological and medical treatments should be available to children under 18. Should it be (a) medical boards who have undertaken systematic reviews as part of formal evidence-based medical assessments, or (b) individual doctors and therapists?

Several people on this board have said we should simply leave this to "patients and their doctors." But as a society we have never simply left matters like this to individual doctors and therapists. Medical boards have historically played a critical role in prohibiting doctors from providing certain treatments when the board determines those treatments lack evidence for their efficacy and safety: for example, lobotomies, giving tall girls hormones to reduce their eventual height, gay conversion therapy, and so on.

When people began to question the legitimacy of these once-popular procedures, it was not hard to find defenders of these practices who argued we should simply leave the decision to "patients and their doctors." But we didn't in those cases, and that's not a compelling argument here either.

So, if you agree that medical boards rather than individual doctors should make this decision regarding hormone treatments for children experiencing gender dysphoria, then we should be looking at what Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, England, and a growing number of countries have concluded here, as they are the only ones who have undertaken systematic assessments.

[oldbadger]

You shouldn't naively rely on activist websites aimed at smearing the reputations of those who disagree with them.

How ironic.....!

[brunumb]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #102]

The only way that gender ideology has gained its foothold is precisely because activists attack and smear the reputations of anyone who even merely asks questions. You don't have to be whatever-phobic either. Just a hint of blood and the sharks begin to circle. Evolution established two sexes for the purpose of reproduction and nothing has changed despite the howling of the ideologically captured. But, as soon as they start howling, the faithful flock that belong to this new cult bring all their threats and force to bear and crush anyone who disagrees. We are losing our free speech and it is becoming a crime to even express the slightest dissenting opinion, now categorised conveniently as hate speech. Trans activists have undone most of the hard won gains of the LGB and when the dust settles we will all be back to square one. Sadly, the children who got caught up in the gender craze and medically transitioned will be paying a heavy price for the rest of their lives.

[boatsnguitars]

I've bolded the claim: we should simply affirm the "wishes" of every 12-year old who wants to take off-label drugs to halt puberty

So, that was not a claim, but originally a question to oldbadger.

He suggested above that denying puberty blockers to any young child who really wants them somehow constitutes an unfair "domination and control" of their "wishes." So I am asking him a clarifying question to see whether he thinks we should simply affirm the wishes of any 12-year old who really wants to take such drugs, even though there is a lack of evidence for both their efficacy and safety.

Let's let him answer.

Can you at least admit it's not EVERY 12 year old wanting puberty blockers?

Of course not every 12 year old wants to take puberty blockers.

After all, it seems the doctors have already done the studies and found results. You seem to believe them there, but not when they agree to puberty blockers, etc.

Right, so the real question here is who should make the determination of what psychological and medical treatments should be available to children under 18. Should it be (a) medical boards who have undertaken systematic reviews as part of formal evidence-based medical assessments, or (b) individual doctors and therapists?

Several people on this board have said we should simply leave this to "patients and their doctors." But as a society we have never simply left matters like this to individual doctors and therapists. Medical boards have historically played a critical role in prohibiting doctors from providing certain treatments when the board determines those treatments lack evidence for their efficacy and safety: for example, lobotomies, giving tall girls hormones to reduce their eventual height, gay conversion therapy, and so on.

When people began to question the legitimacy of these once-popular procedures, it was not hard to find defenders of these practices who argued we should simply leave the decision to "patients and their doctors." But we didn't in those cases, and that's not a compelling argument here either.

So, if you agree that medical boards rather than individual doctors should make this decision regarding hormone treatments for children experiencing gender dysphoria, then we should be looking at what Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, England, and a growing number of countries have concluded here, as they are the only ones who have undertaken systematic assessments.

I will put you down as pro "design by committee." Hell, I'm a Socialist but not even I have that much faith in Boards, and Committees being the best ones to decide individual cases.

Again, let me put it to you: Would you want all your Health decisions made by a committee? By a general rule, as opposed to your specific case?

Because as I see it, there are going to be exceptions to the rule. Obviously, your concern is that someone's life isn't destroyed by a bad decision - so I'd argue that a Board is going to get it wrong far more often than a few individual doctors.

Agreed?

[Clownboat]

I'm back from vacation...

Clownboat's rules? Just offer a simple example.

Clownboat's rules? You seem lost as I am ONLY asking you a question. How you imagine me ruling by asking a simple question is alarming.
For the 3rd time: "Would you support humans that would use the pronouns that 'they' see fit when addressing others?" (You provided an example of what we are talking about below by the way!)

The answer you fear to provide seems to be 'no', you would not support humans using the pronouns that they see fit when addressing others.
As I have said many times, I am just checking for consistency because you used these words earlier in this debate: "I cannot stand bullies and those who would control and dominate other people's lives."

There you are! You won't 'get along' if you address others with your own choice of pronouns.

Derp! You're talking to someone that does use the pronouns that people prefer I use. I'm inquiring your opinion about those that wouldn't and you seem afraid to address this.

You told me earlier 'Try investigating a pedophile without using words that might offend the said person.' and I immediately recognised the prejudice in your sentence.

Nice distraction though from my actual point about whether or not we should be allowed to offend people. There is no prejudice outside of what you imagine.

For reality's sake:- How dreadful! You'd be a very poor investigator, you know.

Holy monkeys! Anything to avoid even an attempt to see the actual point being made. You are trying way to hard to make this about me when clearly I'm addressing whether or not humans should go to jail or not if they offend another human.

For debating's sake:- Your choice of scenario, that of questioning a known pedophile, here on this thread titled 'Is Transgender a choice?' suggests that you link transgenders to pedophiles, possibly? Do you?
Is that a telling question, of yours?

You're not even close and your words have offended me. Should you now go to jail or should you be allowed to offend me by suggesting that I am linking transgenders with pedophiles (something I am not doing)? I think your words should be allowed so that others can see what kind of person you are. That is the point I am making here and why I am not a fan of making speech a crime (exceptions to every rule of course, like shouting 'bomb' in an airport). Let us let the jerks expose themselves with their words. Thanks for helping me make this point.

Well that is just offensive! J/K
You obviously don't know me very well. Can you point to where you perceive me being sensitive? I'm literally arguing that we need to be able to offend our fellow humans, not that I am encouraging offence though, just noting the importance of it (to cut off your next off topic side question).

And now we come full circle. Would you like to criminalize speech? For example, purposely using the wrong pronoun because a person is a jerk and wants to be a jerk. Would you seek to control and dominate such a persons speech?

Where I live we have laws that do criminalise some speech, and I'm guessing that your country does as well.

I asked a yes/no question and you respond about laws where you live in place of answering. It seems you are just trying to waste my time and that I find offensive (I'm ok with being offended remember). Should you be allowed to offend? Where do we draw the line with offense?

If you don't like laws that control folks, then I'm at a loss as to where to suggest where you might go.

I didn't ask you and once again, you fail to understand it seems. I trust the readers are following along.

I don't think that I believe you. I'm sure that you do bang the 'No Controls!' drum, until you yourself want or need the law to protect you. You see?........ Controls.

What you believe about me is meaningless. It seems you have nothing of substance to offer in reply. You would prefer to see me as some villain instead.

If I saw a jerk purposely using the wrong pronouns because they are trying to be hurtful, I would say something. If society (those around me) agree, we will likely make the jerk feel very small for being the jerk that they are and they will then be exposed.

That sounds like domination to me.

"Hey, quit being a jerk!" <---- That is to dominate in your book?

Oh come on....! Nobody would put your elderly widowed neighbour in clank because they were rude to you,

OMG, you just provided one example that you have been asking me to provide. Good on you!
So this neighbor, that continues to call me Mr., when I identify as a Mrs. (in this senario), should she be fined or put in the clank? (I can't wait to read this dance coming).

[Purple Knight]

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.

That's for a jury and or a judge to decide, each case being quite separate to all others.

I notice that Chloe is suing Kaiser in connection with her surgery, I wonder how that individual case will be decided?

I didn't ask about whether any extant individual ought to get damages, though I do ask you to assume that at least some detransitioners who feel misled are not simply lying. I am asking whether you think there should be a process to seek damages, and if the award of damages could ever be correct, in your opinion. Or, if you think that these steps that are in place, adequately ensure that if they are followed, the child is not misled and does not deserve any compensation.

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?

Each case is individual. It's down to Courts to decide.

I don't know how many minors have transitioned when compared with how many minors claim to have been misled.

I didn't ask about specific cases. I'm essentially asking if you will think the courts are in error if they start giving out damages, saying the child was misled, even though these steps were followed.

So you personally would support a child's decision to transfer gender?

Yes, but it goes along with my thought that to have a fair society, we must treat everyone in that society as competent, even if they're not, because having a class of legal subhumans who don't get to make their own decisions is simply a worse dragon to bear than letting people who really aren't competent to make their own decisions, make them anyway. In the latter case, people can learn they are incompetent and start asking for advice. In the former case, people can just use "I know better" to oppress, and I think many children do get oppressed by their parents this way.

So I think children should be allowed to emancipate themselves at any age. If they ask to be free of their parents' authority, they ought to have that. And they ought to be able to do whatever they like to their own bodies.

I've been angry at the Left lately because this issue spotlights the fact that every person in society needs to be treated as a person, but no one will come out and say that. I've always been angry at anyone on the Left who believes in parental authority because they think, "my body my choice," but by believing in parental authority, they would have a sixteen-year-old denied an abortion if the parent denies it and no doctor agrees the abortion is necessary, because that's what parental authority is: Your body, but unless a professional cries abuse, not your choice.

I actually believe in freedom. In other words, people are people and should get to make their own choices, regardless of what other people think about what their age, cognitive ability, race, sex, or other qualities mean for their ability to make their own choices. But I'm the only one. So far as I know. Prove me wrong.

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.

No, I think we should impose electroshock therapy, or maybe send you to a Imam to purge the demon from you...

By not taking this as a part of a larger issue, it looks bad for an equal society. If it is popular for some group to continue to be oppressed, even the most vocal in the don't-oppress-people crowd will support their continued oppression. Amazing that the people on the other side start to smell false virtue.

[brunumb]

I actually believe in freedom. In other words, people are people and should get to make their own choices, regardless of what other people think about what their age, cognitive ability, race, sex, or other qualities mean for their ability to make their own choices.

Do you also advocate for people taking sole responsibility for their choices, particularly when things subsequently go pear shaped?

[oldbadger]

The only way that gender ideology has gained its foothold is precisely because activists attack and smear the reputations of anyone who even merely asks questions. You don't have to be whatever-phobic either. Just a hint of blood and the sharks begin to circle.

You are not merely asking questions..... you are committed to breaking up Transgender freedom.

Evolution established two sexes for the purpose of reproduction and nothing has changed despite the howling of the ideologically captured. But, as soon as they start howling, the faithful flock that belong to this new cult bring all their threats and force to bear and crush anyone who disagrees.

My Carolina Drake Duck is proof enough that Transgenderism has always existed, and you are howling rather loud yourself.

We are losing our free speech and it is becoming a crime to even express the slightest dissenting opinion, now categorised conveniently as hate speech.

Oh please.....you've been ranting against Transgenders for a very long time....... and look! You're free as a bird.

Trans activists have undone most of the hard won gains of the LGB and when the dust settles we will all be back to square one. Sadly, the children who got caught up in the gender craze and medically transitioned will be paying a heavy price for the rest of their lives.

We have 40 young people who have transitioned, I hear, out of about 66 million people. And don't try and make them infants and juniors, they are teens.

And now a rant against Wokeism....???
Is there any part of the LGBT movement that you actually support?

QUESTION:-
Are you married?

[oldbadger]

I'm back from vacation...

Clownboat's rules? You seem lost as I am ONLY asking you a question. How you imagine me ruling by asking a simple question is alarming.
For the 3rd time: "Would you support humans that would use the pronouns that 'they' see fit when addressing others?" (You provided an example of what we are talking about below by the way!)

The answer you fear to provide seems to be 'no', you would not support humans using the pronouns that they see fit when addressing others.
As I have said many times, I am just checking for consistency because you used these words earlier in this debate: "I cannot stand bullies and those who would control and dominate other people's lives."

Derp! You're talking to someone that does use the pronouns that people prefer I use. I'm inquiring your opinion about those that wouldn't and you seem afraid to address this.

Nice distraction though from my actual point about whether or not we should be allowed to offend people. There is no prejudice outside of what you imagine.

Holy monkeys! Anything to avoid even an attempt to see the actual point being made. You are trying way to hard to make this about me when clearly I'm addressing whether or not humans should go to jail or not if they offend another human.

You're not even close and your words have offended me. Should you now go to jail or should you be allowed to offend me by suggesting that I am linking transgenders with pedophiles (something I am not doing)? I think your words should be allowed so that others can see what kind of person you are. That is the point I am making here and why I am not a fan of making speech a crime (exceptions to every rule of course, like shouting 'bomb' in an airport). Let us let the jerks expose themselves with their words. Thanks for helping me make this point.

You obviously don't know me very well. Can you point to where you perceive me being sensitive? I'm literally arguing that we need to be able to offend our fellow humans, not that I am encouraging offence though, just noting the importance of it (to cut off your next off topic side question).

I asked a yes/no question and you respond about laws where you live in place of answering. It seems you are just trying to waste my time and that I find offensive (I'm ok with being offended remember). Should you be allowed to offend? Where do we draw the line with offense?

I didn't ask you and once again, you fail to understand it seems. I trust the readers are following along.

What you believe about me is meaningless. It seems you have nothing of substance to offer in reply. You would prefer to see me as some villain instead.

"Hey, quit being a jerk!" <---- That is to dominate in your book?

OMG, you just provided one example that you have been asking me to provide. Good on you!
So this neighbor, that continues to call me Mr., when I identify as a Mrs. (in this senario), should she be fined or put in the clank? (I can't wait to read this dance coming).

You're just back from vacation?
It looks as if you need another, CB.

You are talking quite a lot of rubbish, still, and you ask a lot of questions but do not taske notice of my answers.

One example:-
You asked me about free speech and I answered:-
Where I live we have laws that do criminalise some speech, and I'm guessing that your country does as well.
....yet you complain that I answered in connection with my own country and not yours.
So this is a test....... please read my answer and and see if I referred to your country anywhere.

I have asked you for an example of anybody being convicted of using offensive speech against another in any way, and so far you've failed to do that. Just select one example out of the zillions that you are obviously complaining about and post it up here for us to review. Then we'll know exactly what you are ranting about.
But somehow I don't think you will............. or would you like to show one?

[oldbadger]

I didn't ask about whether any extant individual ought to get damages, though I do ask you to assume that at least some detransitioners who feel misled are not simply lying. I am asking whether you think there should be a process to seek damages, and if the award of damages could ever be correct, in your opinion. Or, if you think that these steps that are in place, adequately ensure that if they are followed, the child is not misled and does not deserve any compensation.

I didn't ask about specific cases. I'm essentially asking if you will think the courts are in error if they start giving out damages, saying the child was misled, even though these steps were followed.

I believe in Civil Courts hearing about any and all cases of damage caused to anybody by any causes. So of course I believe that there should be a process to seek damages. Then its up to the Courts to find for or against each case on its own merits.

But in the USA the amounts of damages awarded by Courts can be ridiculously unbelievably high.

Yes, but it goes along with my thought that to have a fair society, we must treat everyone in that society as competent, even if they're not,

I've never heard anything like that before. You yourself have abilities and disabilities, same as I do...... I seek help for situations where I am unable to act for myself. I get specialists to help me in all kinds of situations, and health is certainly one of those areas.

because having a class of legal subhumans who don't get to make their own decisions is simply a worse dragon to bear than letting people who really aren't competent to make their own decisions, make them anyway. In the latter case, people can learn they are incompetent and start asking for advice. In the former case, people can just use "I know better" to oppress, and I think many children do get oppressed by their parents this way.

Are you a parent? If not, wait until you are and then see if you'll let your children make any decisions that they want to.

So I think children should be allowed to emancipate themselves at any age. If they ask to be free of their parents' authority, they ought to have that. And they ought to be able to do whatever they like to their own bodies.

Wow! Wait until you are a parent.........

I've been angry at the Left lately because this issue spotlights the fact that every person in society needs to be treated as a person, but no one will come out and say that. I've always been angry at anyone on the Left who believes in parental authority because they think, "my body my choice," but by believing in parental authority, they would have a sixteen-year-old denied an abortion if the parent denies it and no doctor agrees the abortion is necessary, because that's what parental authority is: Your body, but unless a professional cries abuse, not your choice.

The Left? The Left has made you angry recently?
OK.

I actually believe in freedom. In other words, people are people and should get to make their own choices, regardless of what other people think about what their age, cognitive ability, race, sex, or other qualities mean for their ability to make their own choices. But I'm the only one. So far as I know. Prove me wrong.

I cannot prove you wrong, because I don't know anybody who is entirely free to do anything that they like. We have rules and laws to live by and we take away people's freedom almost completely if they bust those.