> Is it transphobia to argue if children should have access to surgery?
It is transphobia to deliberately and knowingly lie that children are getting gender confirmation surgery. Because they aren't.
> To argue about puberty blockers?
Puberty blockers are non-invasive and reversible and given as medical care for harm reduction. Why do you think what medical care someone gets is anyone else's business? More importantly though, such discourse is never in good faith.
> Pretty weird if something can be discussed in legislature, but not on twitter
It's still misinformation and hate speech when it's "discussed" in bad faith by reactionary state legislatures.
> The point is that we, as a society, need to discuss.
First ask yourself why anyone else gets a say in another person's medical care. It's really no one else's business.
The most interesting thing about your reply is that you are, yourself, parroting misinformation.
Children are being subject to surgery, and puberty blockers are not “non-invasive and reversible”.
This is trivially verifiable and well-documented, including, most recently, in the New York Times; that you’d label objective, obvious truths as “transphobia” demonstrates exactly why we need robust, open discourse.
Honestly I completely agree with you. Even though the wpath standards of care for transgender people clearly shows the benefits outway the potential downsides, and those downsides haven't even been proven to exist yet due to lack of data; I don't think it's fair to children to force them to grow without hormones for years. We should really be allowing trans children to start hrt much sooner, that would deal with all the potential problems of puberty blockers
The question seems to hinge on the definition of child. Totally my fault, I said "should children get access to surgery". The productive way to go is to talk about ages and interventions available.
What we can affirm is that: people in slovenia can have sex reassignment surgery at 15, in scotland at 16. In most EU countries, after 18
And the we can ask if those policies are generating more happiness than suffering, or more suffering than happiness.
The NYT article mentions a 16 year old getting a mastectomy, hormones, and then regretting it. I would consider a 16 year old a child, but you might not, and that is fine. The useful question is still: was it too soon? Maybe not! Maybe she is just unlucky, and mastectomies of 14 years old will make the world a better place.
But it is a discussion, and people will not accept that they don't get to ask questions and have opinions.
It is transphobia to deliberately and knowingly lie that children are getting gender confirmation surgery. Because they aren't.
> To argue about puberty blockers?
Puberty blockers are non-invasive and reversible and given as medical care for harm reduction. Why do you think what medical care someone gets is anyone else's business? More importantly though, such discourse is never in good faith.
> Pretty weird if something can be discussed in legislature, but not on twitter
It's still misinformation and hate speech when it's "discussed" in bad faith by reactionary state legislatures.
> The point is that we, as a society, need to discuss.
First ask yourself why anyone else gets a say in another person's medical care. It's really no one else's business.