I always wonder if these arguments are ever made in good faith. Comparing a treatment for diabetes to HRT. But there are people who really are off the deep end. So who knows.
I agree, but it can go too far as well. It's not healthy for children to be limited to knowing only their parents' and the government's opinions on serious topics. There has to be a balance between avoiding indoctrination and being aware of brain development schedule.
> since children don't have developed critical thinking skills.
So should everyone under the age of 25 (roughly when your brain becomes fully developed) be prohibited from talking about any kind of medical treatment?
Also, how do you expect people to develop critical thinking skills if they’re never presented with challenging concepts or, you know, required to think critically about things?
Given how many trans kids commit suicide when prevented from transitioning, i’d say both save lives. And that’s why i’m ok with it. Because going on puberty blockers until you’re 18 seems like a very non-invasive way to thread the needle of patient care for minors
The recent UK Cass Review concluded "It has been suggested that hormone treatment reduces the elevated risk of death by suicide in this population, but the evidence found did not support this conclusion."
Not the person you were replying to, but the Cass review was quite clearly bunk. Its main thrust is essentially: "there are no double blind studies on the effects of affirming care for minors, so we should stop prescribing it immediately". Aside from the fact that the conclusion does not follow from the premise, how exactly could one do a double blind study on puberty blockers? So the report throws out essentially the entire body of research for failing to meet an impossible to meet standard.
> Did the Review reject studies that were not double blind randomised control trials in its systematic review of evidence for puberty blockers and masculinising / feminising hormones?
> No. There were no randomised control studies identified in the systematic reviews, but other types of studies were included if they were well designed and conducted.
