Interesting article on transgender kids

[Robert Maxwell]

This transgender thing irritates me extremely. When physically, someone is a male, but thinks he is a female (and vice versa)? And then some go great lengths to actually physically alter their bodies with hormone therapy and surgery. I don't know what to think of that. But it sounds to me like facilitating psychological issues. If someone thinks he needs a vagina and breasts to be eternally happy, isn't that the same as someone who thinks he needs to cut his arm off in order to be eternally happy with himself? Good thing I don't have to decide on that.

Well, people who shoot their mouths off about serious medical issues in a way that can be hurtful or harmful to others without any knowledge or evidence to back up their assertions irritate me extremely. Why don't you decide on how to discuss things in the future without coming off like a total jerk.

Okay, if it makes me a jerk to say I don't know what to think of it, and then ask a question about it, then so be it. I actually was hoping for a serious answer. Why is it not a psychological issue?

Let's not pretend you came into this thread with an open mind and an attitude free of judgment. You started off saying it "irritates [you] extremely," as if your personal comfort with something is the foremost concern.

Without giving you a complete history of trans issues, the reason it's not considered a mental illness is because treating it as one doesn't work. You cannot convince someone who considers herself a woman trapped in a male body that they are, in fact, just a man with a mental illness. That approach was tried for decades and it simply doesn't get results.

So, what does work? Taking a trans person's gender identity seriously and assisting them with transition to whatever extent they are comfortable with. Not everyone opts for surgery to alter their genitals, nor do they all use hormone therapy, but those are all options that are available.

Telling a trans person to stop being trans is about as useful as telling a gay person to stop being gay.

 

[JarodRussell]

Let's not pretend you came into this thread with an open mind and an attitude free of judgment. You started off saying it "irritates [you] extremely," as if your personal comfort with something is the foremost concern.

Let's pretend I did, and that English isn't my mother language. Irritates, confuses, jars, vexes, confounds, whatever the correct word is. It's not about my personal comfort.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

^ Yes, where has anyone in this thread disagreed with Wente's experts on ideological or political grounds?

JAllen referred to Zucker as an "ideological asshole" and wrote that he was at odds with the LGBTQ community, the first is an ideological objection the second a political one.

Already ninja'd, but I'll submit anyway, for a more complete sample of replies.

The post in question is apparently here.

J explained why he thinks Zucker is an "ideological asshole": Zucker considers transgender people to be mentally ill. This isn't ideology that has no bearing on the treatment of his patients, for example such as which party Zucker tends to support at the ballot box. When a person says that people are disagreeing with the experts on an "ideological or political basis", the suggestion is that what's in question is ideology that has no bearing on the science. Suggesting that people are judging the interviewees just on the basis of their ideology, only to hold up an example when someone's (J's) position is that the doctor's ideology has a negative bearing on how he treats his patients, is a cute gotcha.*

J cited the LGBTQ community as the source for why Dreger isn't the champion of transgender peoples' rights that she claims she is. There was nothing political there.

J. Allen, if I put words in your mouth, please correct me and accept my apology.

* - That's sarcasm. It isn't cute at all. Just to be clear, it's fallacious.

a diagnosis of manic depression/bipolar disorder is often not made before adolescence. Now, would you, by definition, say that a mental health professional would be doing a pre-adolescent child harm if they refrained from such a diagnosis? Of course I would say that a child should be treated for whatever related problems might come with a potential condition without necessarily accepting right away that they have it.

You're not a doctor and I'm not a doctor. How about leaving those determinations to experts? What is with lay people assuming they know better than actual experts and professionals? As much as I am a supporter of fair treatment and rights for trans people, my first instinct if someone came to me expressing gender dysphoria would be to a) accept that their experience is legitimate and b) advise them to seek professional care. I sure as hell wouldn't try to determine whether their dysphoria is sufficient for a diagnosis or to suggest a particular course of treatment. I don't have the knowledge or expertise. All I can do is be supportive. And you know what? That's all you should do, too.

(For what it's worth, I actually did know a preteen who was diagnosed with bipolar and depression and was medicated for it. It made a big difference, too.)

Um, you realize that there are people on this very thread who disagreed with two experts because of their opposition to them on an ideological or political basis, right? That is certainly their right, and it ends up making your criteria circular: agree with the experts when they confirm your views or match your ideological preferences, but feel free to disagree with them if they don't.

Moreover, a default trust in elites or experts is problematic in a democratic society where citizens are supposed to make decisions about issue X even if they don't work in a related field or have an advanced degree. Also, experts have their own biases. Look at some of the elite economic advisors in this country or sources in media that have corporate interests. Not all experts are detached philosopher kings who have the straight arrow to truth.

 

[YellowSubmarine]

Why is it not a psychological issue, when there is a definite sex, but the person thinks he/she has the wrong gender? Or, rephrased, what makes the person right in its assumption that it has the wrong gender, which is used as the justification for extensive physical therapy?

Because:
- Changing their body allows them to live a happy normal life. Trying to fix their mind does not.
- It is possible for a person to become a fully able individual of the opposite biological sex. It thus makes little sense to treat your biological sex as an inseparable unchangeable characteristic of who you are.
- A person is mostly defined by their brain. If they have a brain that thinks and feels like the opposite gender, and they can change what their body is, the last thing they want is to mess with their brain.

A though experiment: It's September 2632. You suffer a terrible pod racing accident and the surgeons are forced to give you a full-body transplant. However, they only have a woman body available in time to save you, so you wake up in a woman's body. Since your mind didn't change, you still feel the same way, consider yourself the same person and identify as the same – a man.

If indeed your mind hasn't changed at all, there's no way for you to have developed a mental illness in the process of surgery. So you're now a man in a woman's body. Congratulations.

P.S. I don't think the psychological and neurological reasons for people becoming transgender are fully understood, so I don't know if the though experiment matches the reality for a trans person, but from my attempts to learn more about it, it would seem to be close and to have the same consequences from a practical point of view. Especially if you're a bystander who has no personal contact with this matter.

 

[RoJoHen]

A though experiment: It's September 2632. You suffer a terrible pod racing accident and the surgeons are forced to give you a full-body transplant. However, they only have a woman body available in time to save you, so you wake up in a woman's body. Since your mind didn't change, you still feel the same way, consider yourself the same person and identify as the same – a man.

If indeed your mind hasn't changed at all, there's no way for you to have developed a mental illness in the process of surgery. So you're now a man in a woman's body. Congratulations.

P.S. I don't think the psychological and neurological reasons for people becoming transgender are fully understood, so I don't know if the though experiment matches the reality for a trans person, but from my attempts to learn more about it, it would seem to be close and to have the same consequences from a practical point of view. Especially if you're a bystander who has no personal contact with this matter.

The problem with your analogy is that the man was a man because he grew up in a man's body. When you transferred his brain, his new body was literally the wrong gender.

Gender disphoria is a weird thing. I certainly can't wrap my head around what's going on in these people's heads that makes them believe their body is wrong.

At the end of the day, though, it should be about making these people happy so that they can lead produtive lives. Whether that means fixing the brain to match the body or altering the body to match what's going on in the brain probably depends on the individual in question.

 

[sonak]

Um, you realize that there are people on this very thread who disagreed with two experts because of their opposition to them on an ideological or political basis, right? That is certainly their right, and it ends up making your criteria circular: agree with the experts when they confirm your views or match your ideological preferences, but feel free to disagree with them if they don't.

First off, they're not legitimate "experts" on gender dysphoria, nor are they respected in the field. They're bigoted, religiously motivated snake oil salesmen who consider being gay a mental illness and try and reverse it through conversion therapy, and apparently think they can do the same with gender dysphoria. You've been corrected on this multiple times yet still keep claiming they're experts. It's not just ignorance any more, it's deliberate and malicious misinformation on your part now, because you're so dug in on this issue.

Secondly, since when is it "political" to disregard the unscientific ravings of charlatans when it comes to medical treatment? Do I have to give equal weight to every Flat-Earther and Creationist now, lest I be considered politically biased? People are free to believe whatever they want so long as they don't harm others (which they are possibly doing in this case), but that doesn't mean they all deserve an equal place at the table of scientific debate.

Moreover, a default trust in elites or experts is problematic in a democratic society where citizens are supposed to make decisions about issue X even if they don't work in a related field or have an advanced degree. Also, experts have their own biases. Look at some of the elite economic advisors in this country or sources in media that have corporate interests. Not all experts are detached philosopher kings who have the straight arrow to truth.

So, when did you take up climate change denial? Tell us more about Obama's fake birth certificate and how 9/11 was a controlled demolition. I mean, shit, you've basically stated that we can't trust anything experts have to say... but we know that's not true, and that you still find those other things ridiculous; it's just this issue that you're irrationally hung up on, probably because you find the idea icky or distrust psychiatry.

What exactly are you even trying to prove in this thread any more? How stubborn someone can be in the face of being completely discredited? You're not even arguing the premise of the article any more, because there's nothing to argue there. You're just digging in your heels and keeping things going because dammit, you think gender dysphoria is weird, and you're going to make sure everyone knows it.

you do realize that Zucker is a psychiatrist, right? Who has worked for years in the field and has legitimate academic credentials, right? You ever hear of Paul McHugh? He was a religiously-motivated conservative as well, and while I may disagree with them on that, the comparison between EXPERTS WHO ACTUALLY HAVE CREDENTIALS IN THE FIELD THEY'RE IN is not even in the same ballpark as charlatans like Ken Ham or Kent Hovind. who are not legitimate scientists yet claim to be discussing science.

And I never said that I didn't trust experts. I said that you shouldn't blindly trust them in all cases and that you can't claim on the one hand "trust anyone who's an expert" and then say "but not THOSE experts, it's okay to disagree with THOSE experts."

And I'm continually amused by your and others' approach of assuming that if I continue to disagree with you it must be because I'm stubborn or I'm an idiot. Believe what you want, but I have read a lot of perspectives on this. You come across like a preacher arguing that atheists REALLY believe in God deep down, but they're stubborn and just want to watch porn and have sex without marriage.


I have a different perspective than you, but it doesn't mean that I support prejudice or belittling of those who are transgender.

 

[sonak]

So now sonak thinks it's controversial or unfair to consider gay conversion therapists unreliable authorities? Good lord...

I think that gay conversion therapy is silly and discredited but that doesn't mean the man doesn't have credentials in the field of psychiatry.

 

[Shanndee]

I'm on a break at work and don't have time to read all of the new posts, so I'm sorry if this has been posted already. This is a letter to the editor in today's Globe and Mail. I have bolded the parts that seem important to this "discussion".

"Puberty is often a difficult time for transgender youth. Left unaddressed, the distress from physical changes that are not in keeping with their gender identity may be so great that it can lead to suicidal ideation and even suicide. In such cases, a watch-and-wait approach does not make sense.


When this distress is significant, puberty blockers or medications that put puberty “on hold” may be administered so that young people have more time to consolidate gender identity and gain access to mental-health resources. Such medications are considered safe and reversible and are endorsed by numerous international health organizations.



The column implies that hormone blockers are used before puberty, but current recommended protocols endorse treatment only after puberty has started."

Dr. Joey Bonifacio, Dr. Miriam Kaufman, Dr. Mark Palmert, Cathy Maser, Cheryl Ryans and Katie Stadelman, Transgender Youth Clinic, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto

 

[Amaris]

^ Yes, where has anyone in this thread disagreed with Wente's experts on ideological or political grounds?

JAllen referred to Zucker as an "ideological asshole" and wrote that he was at odds with the LGBTQ community, the first is an ideological objection the second a political one.

Already ninja'd, but I'll submit anyway, for a more complete sample of replies.

The post in question is apparently here.

J explained why he thinks Zucker is an "ideological asshole": Zucker considers transgender people to be mentally ill. This isn't ideology that has no bearing on the treatment of his patients, for example such as which party Zucker tends to support at the ballot box. When a person says that people are disagreeing with the experts on an "ideological or political basis", the suggestion is that what's in question is ideology that has no bearing on the science. Suggesting that people are judging the interviewees just on the basis of their ideology, only to hold up an example when someone's (J's) position is that the doctor's ideology has a negative bearing on how he treats his patients, is a cute gotcha.*

J cited the LGBTQ community as the source for why Dreger isn't the champion of transgender peoples' rights that she claims she is. There was nothing political there.

J. Allen, if I put words in your mouth, please correct me and accept my apology.

* - That's sarcasm. It isn't cute at all. Just to be clear, it's fallacious.

Got it in one.

 

[Shanndee]

There are also 2 letter to the editor from parents of transgendered children in this "letters to the editor" section. They are also worth a look.

 

[YellowSubmarine]

The problem with your analogy is that the man was a man because he grew up in a man's body. When you transferred his brain, his new body was literally the wrong gender.

That was my point actually. I didn't attempt to illustrate what being transgender means exactly – I neither know, nor it is any of my business to do what others can do better. I was trying to give a simple example that it's possible for a mind to be perfectly sound and think it's the opposite gender (in this case, quite literally).

That being said, if the development of the brain and the mind isn't physiologically and neurologically bound to always go in tune with development of the rest of the body (which it isn't), there might not be that much of a difference between my literal case and the actual case. A person is who they are, not what their personal history was, much less so on a biological/chemical level.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Got it in one.

Good to know.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

you do realize that Zucker is a psychiatrist, right? Who has worked for years in the field and has legitimate academic credentials, right?

Yes, one who practices therapies and techniques completely outside the recommended standards for the field and whose theories have been largely discredited and criticized as harmful.

Also, for all your talk about not wanting to misdiagnose and begin treatment on children too early, his entire treatment regimen hinges around practicing reparative therapy on children as young as possible. Where's your concern there?

For children assigned as males at birth, Zucker asks parents to take away their child's "feminine" toys and instruct the child not to play with or draw pictures of girls.

Zucker believes that failing to control a child's gender expression at a young age and seek early counseling for transgendered behavior can be considered "some type of emotional neglect."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Zucker

He believes in forcing an outcome on children that fits his agenda, not doing what is best for the child's mental health and in keeping with their needs, identity, and wishes.

And I never said that I didn't trust experts. I said that you shouldn't blindly trust them in all cases and that you can't claim on the one hand "trust anyone who's an expert" and then say "but not THOSE experts, it's okay to disagree with THOSE experts."

No, you trust a consensus of experts in the field, not individual fringe lunatics like Zucker.

And I'm continually amused by your and others' approach of assuming that if I continue to disagree with you it must be because I'm stubborn or I'm an idiot. Believe what you want, but I have read a lot of perspectives on this.

Oh, you're absolutely stubborn. You've proven that time and again. And you said the second one, not me.

Also, having read your previous comments on the transgenderism in TNZ (as have others), I have an understanding of the extent of your intolerance on the subject that people who have not read that thread do not, so they might consider you more open-minded than you actually are. Which I suspect is the actual reason you decided to do this thread here rather than in TNZ where more people know your history on the subject.

You come across like a preacher arguing that atheists REALLY believe in God deep down, but they're stubborn and just want to watch porn and have sex without marriage.

You're hilarious. You're the one arguing a point to death without a shred of actual evidence based on a shitty opinion piece, citing an ex-gay and transgendered raparative therapist as an expert, and constantly shifting the goalposts to fit your unscientific viewpoint, but I'm the preacher?

I have a different perspective than you, but it doesn't mean that I support prejudice or belittling of those who are transgender.

No, you just support withholding beneficial treatment to children and teens in distress because you find the subject matter weird, and support the arguments and therapies of those who seek to suppress these children's identities and force a "normal" (in their view) outcome on them. You're a real peach.

 

[sonak]

you do realize that Zucker is a psychiatrist, right? Who has worked for years in the field and has legitimate academic credentials, right?

Yes, one who practices therapies and techniques completely outside the recommended standards for the field and whose theories have been largely discredited and criticized as harmful.

Also, for all your talk about not wanting to misdiagnose and begin treatment on children too early, his entire treatment regimen hinges around practicing reparative therapy on children as young as possible. Where's your concern there?

For children assigned as males at birth, Zucker asks parents to take away their child's "feminine" toys and instruct the child not to play with or draw pictures of girls.

Zucker believes that failing to control a child's gender expression at a young age and seek early counseling for transgendered behavior can be considered "some type of emotional neglect."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Zucker

He believes in forcing an outcome on children that fits his agenda, not doing what is best for the child's mental health and in keeping with their needs, identity, and wishes.

No, you trust a consensus of experts in the field, not individual fringe lunatics like Zucker.

Oh, you're absolutely stubborn. You've proven that time and again. And you said the second one, not me.

Also, having read your previous comments on the transgenderism in TNZ (as have others), I have an understanding of the extent of your intolerance on the subject that people who have not read that thread do not, so they might consider you more open-minded than you actually are. Which I suspect is the actual reason you decided to do this thread here rather than in TNZ where more people know your history on the subject.

You come across like a preacher arguing that atheists REALLY believe in God deep down, but they're stubborn and just want to watch porn and have sex without marriage.

You're hilarious. You're the one arguing a point to death without a shred of actual evidence based on a shitty opinion piece, citing an ex-gay and transgendered raparative therapist as an expert, and constantly shifting the goalposts to fit your unscientific viewpoint, but I'm the preacher?

I have a different perspective than you, but it doesn't mean that I support prejudice or belittling of those who are transgender.

No, you just support withholding beneficial treatment to children and teens in distress because you find the subject matter weird, and support the arguments and therapies of those who seek to suppress these children's identities and force a "normal" (in their view) outcome on them. You're a real peach.

You can believe whatever you'd like about my motivations, and I doubt I'd persuade you any differently. And actually, as it's turned out, many of the contributors in that thread have contributed here too, so obviously if I were trying to "hide" my views it wouldn't work because the people familiar with them are here anyway. However, I'm at least satisfied that putting this discussion here has resulted in a more civil one than putting it in TNZ would have.

Yes you're right that the particular quote by Zucker you referred to is kind of creepy and shows that(as I clearly mentioned before) he has rigid and conservative views on gender identity and expression. And you do understand that the preacher thing was an analogy, right? I wasn't referring to you as a preacher in the sense of "you believe in things without evidence," I was referring to it in the sense of "you assume that I CLAIM to have a reasoned basis for my view, but it's really just an excuse for ..." I don't know. I guess you think I view transgender children or individuals as creepy or something, but since I've repeatedly insisted that I don't, and you know(I think?) that I'm generally supportive of LGBTQ rights, I'm not sure how you got that impression. My views on transgender and gender dysphoria come purely from what I've read on it.

Finally, of course by framing the issue as "withholding beneficial treatment" that gives you the rhetorical point. The real issue is whether it is beneficial to give them that treatment so early. As I indicated earlier, there are other conditions where the usual practice for children is to lay off on a diagnosis or even a treatment for a while.(although as Robert Maxwell correctly pointed out, there are exceptions to that)

 

[Locutus of Bored]

However, I'm at least satisfied that putting this discussion here has resulted in a more civil one than putting it in TNZ would have.

There are plenty more ways to be uncivil than occasionally using "colorful metaphors," and I find that people are perfectly capable of being incredibly uncivil on the board outside of TNZ, including in this thread. In fact, I think namecalling is one of the lesser transgressions on the old civility scale.

I guess you think I view transgender children or individuals as creepy or something, but since I've repeatedly insisted that I don't, and you know (I think?) that I'm generally supportive of LGBTQ rights, I'm not sure how you got that impression. My views on transgender and gender dysphoria come purely from what I've read on it.

No, I think your views are this:

I'm skeptical about "transgenderism" in general, since it seems to indicate some kind of gender essentialism bordering almost on mysticism. ("I was MEANT to be a girl, I just know it." "er, what does it meant to know you were meant to be a girl? Meant by who? God? Nature?)

The first part would certainly make a nice soundbite for the faux doctors on Faux News, though.

Finally, of course by framing the issue as "withholding beneficial treatment" that gives you the rhetorical point. The real issue is whether it is beneficial to give them that treatment so early. As I indicated earlier, there are other conditions where the usual practice for children is to lay off on a diagnosis or even a treatment for a while.

As has been pointed out to you countless times in this thread already and you continue to ignore, there's no actual evidence presented to suggest premature diagnoses by psychiatrists or psychologists is actually occurring, there's no credible experts in the field without dubious theories and reputations suggesting that any early treatment would be a problem, and the more involved treatments you and the author are worried about very rarely if ever are administered during childhood.

 

[sonak]

However, I'm at least satisfied that putting this discussion here has resulted in a more civil one than putting it in TNZ would have.

There are plenty more ways to be uncivil than occasionally using "colorful metaphors," and I find that people are perfectly capable of being incredibly uncivil on the board outside of TNZ, including in this thread. In fact, I think namecalling is one of the lesser transgressions on the old civility scale.

I guess you think I view transgender children or individuals as creepy or something, but since I've repeatedly insisted that I don't, and you know (I think?) that I'm generally supportive of LGBTQ rights, I'm not sure how you got that impression. My views on transgender and gender dysphoria come purely from what I've read on it.

No, I think your views are this:

I'm skeptical about "transgenderism" in general, since it seems to indicate some kind of gender essentialism bordering almost on mysticism. ("I was MEANT to be a girl, I just know it." "er, what does it meant to know you were meant to be a girl? Meant by who? God? Nature?)

The first part would certainly make a nice soundbite for the faux doctors on Faux News, though.

Finally, of course by framing the issue as "withholding beneficial treatment" that gives you the rhetorical point. The real issue is whether it is beneficial to give them that treatment so early. As I indicated earlier, there are other conditions where the usual practice for children is to lay off on a diagnosis or even a treatment for a while.

As has been pointed out to you countless times in this thread already and you continue to ignore, there's no actual evidence presented to suggest premature diagnoses by psychiatrists or psychologists is actually occurring, there's no credible experts in the field without dubious theories and reputations suggesting that any early treatment would be a problem, and the more involved treatments you and the author are worried about very rarely if ever are administered during childhood.

Indeed I did write those words, but I'm not sure what you think you're proving by bringing them up. Even allowing for the flippant tone, as it was intended for TNZ, I'm not advocating for prejudice or discrimination toward transgender individuals, I am not denying their right to be the gender they choose, nor am I saying that they are creepy.
If you think that my views on this mirror Fox News', then you are not understanding my argument at all. I am skeptical of the concept of transgender(though open to changing my mind) because it seems to rely on gender essentialism or gender stereotypes in its definition. That is actually a pretty well-known feminist criticism of the concept of transgender, and the fact that you seem unaware of the distinction between an argument from nature(" transgender individuals are unnatural") and one that says that it is difficult to refer to being transgender without referencing stereotypical gender roles or characteristics in some way shows that you're either not understanding me or just not trying to. In fact, at the end of that VERY THREAD, the mother in that article references the very gender stereotypes that I'm referring to in indicating why she knew that Coy was transgender.

None of that is strictly related to the issues involved in this thread, but you brought up that quote in some kind of "gotcha" attempt, so I figured I'd respond.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

There was nothing "gotcha" about it. It was actually saying that I don't think you go so far as finding transgendered people creepy or think that people should harass them, but that you are skeptical of the diagnosis, and that influences your decision to continue doubling down on supporting this article long after everything about it has been debunked.

 

[sonak]

There was nothing "gotcha" about it. It was actually saying that I don't think you go so far as finding transgendered people creepy or think that people should harass them, but that you are skeptical of the diagnosis, and that influences your decision to continue doubling down on supporting this article long after everything about it has been debunked.

oh well then I misunderstood you and you were actually being more fair to my views than I thought. Oops

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I think that looking at transgenderism as either gender essentialism or mysticism is way off base. Transgenderism is a phenomenon that has an empirical basis that is reported by the people who experience it, there are consistencies in what they all report, and so it is an objective phenomenon. The fact that there are mysteries surrounding transgenderism doesn't distinguish it as mystical. Arguing against transgenderism on philosophical grounds is making a categorical error, because the basis for believing in it isn't philosophical, ideological, or political, but rather it's empirical. I'm not going to comment further on this, because I have no interest to right now, and it's not my specialty anyway. If only thestrangequark were here, she'd have something to say.

 

[sonak]

I think that looking at transgenderism as either gender essentialism or mysticism is way off base. Transgenderism is a phenomenon that has an empirical basis that is reported by the people who experience it, there are consistencies in what they all report, and so it is an objective phenomenon. The fact that there are mysteries surrounding transgenderism doesn't distinguish it as mystical. Arguing against transgenderism on philosophical grounds is making a categorical error, because the basis for believing in it isn't philosophical, ideological, or political, but rather it's empirical. I'm not going to comment further on this, because I have no interest to right now, and it's not my specialty anyway. If only thestrangequark were here, she'd have something to say.

I've read what she has to say about it in the other thread. As I wrote, "mystical" comes off as overly flippant. I have read studies(well actually summaries of those studies of course) that indicate that a biological male/ transgender female brain is closer to a cis-gender female brain than a cis-gender male brain which has given me pause in my skepticism, and I do realize that there is more of a diagnosis in gender dysphoria than just gender roles/stereotypes, that there is a genuine feeling of discomfort or "wrongness" there regarding their body.

As I have written I have no deep-seated bias here, merely a surface skepticism. And even if I WERE rigidly ideologically opposed on this it would still of course be the person's decision what to do with their life and body.(HOWEVER, this equation is changed when dealing with a pre-adolescent child where I would still argue that caution is warranted).