Lesbian transgender couple declares their plan to transition their 5-year-old son

DEFTLEFTHAND

It changed in 2012 I think. Up to that point 'Gender Identity Disorder' was considered a mental health condition.

More studies or something must have happened to lead to such a reversal.

Or maybe social political pressures of sorts.

7aubzxk43m2sni

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Take the people who actively WANT a perfectly healthy limb to be removed from their body. At first glance the emotional response to these people is to think they are mad. Nut jobs. Out. Of. Their. Fecking. Tree. Who would actively want a perfectly good, perfectly useful, perfectly operational limb to be removed? Sure they must be "mentally ill". How could they not by. Shure dats jus' man.

Turns out no. There is a genuine underlying physical issue at the level of the brain that appears to explain their issue. Something that literally makes their seemingly perfect limb become a source of absolute misery and even pain for them. And when these people do manage to get the limb lopped off, usually by traveling to countries with less stringent medical ethics on the matter, they return reporting new levels of relief and well being.

I don't understand your logic here. It's not mental illness because there's an issue at the level of the brain that appears to explain their issue?

There are strong links between inflammation of the brain and depression, does that mean depression is not a mental illness?

If your intention is to defend transgenderism / gender dysphoria as "not a mental illness" I don't think referring to those who want to chop off healthy limbs is a good approach to take.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Andy Alive Greengrocer wrote: »

And I didn't say the parents were abusive, just like I didn't say the problem was just the boy wearing dresses.

I don't have a problem with people being trans, there's enough medical evidence supporting it being a legitimate condition, I don't believe it's a mental illness - if it were it would be treated with psychiatric drugs and counselling (and that is done at the start to rule it out first).

I have a problem with the idea of "he's wearing dresses - let's commence the gender reassignment process as soon as he's old enough", and I have a problem with the consensus that a five-year-old can make such an informed choice.

The above is not right - and no amount of "So? It's no big deal - you must be a trans hater" changes that.

Doesn't challenge anything I wrote.

klaaaz

Calhoun wrote: »

Who said anything about a particular set of individuals, are you trying to straw man me or are you one of the individuals impacted?

As per the prime time program and if you take cursory glance at some of the transsexual threads in the LGBT forum there is a want by the Trans community to remove medical intervention when transitioning.

There is also a general consensus of allowing children as young as 12 avail of the hormone blockers, we have seen some fairly dodgy actions happening between child drag stars and parts of the LGBT community, and finally we have other countries enacting laws that make it child abuse to not allow children as young as 12 transition.

So yah id say there is a concerted effort to get them young like religion, pity other predatory behaviors seem to be shared also.

You said there was an indoctrination plan to get them young. I countered that the proof from said Prime Time episode was that only 12 teenagers out of over 900,000 pupils under 18 switched gender, that's an actual fact.

If there is dodgy actions between child drag stars and the LGBT community, that's illegal and it's nothing to do with transgender people as drag is not transgender.

I think you have mixed up the language though. There is a difference between transition and a medical transition, do you have a problem with teenagers transitioning(not medical)?

As said I don't see an actual religion like "predatory" to "get them young", not in this country as the numbers of a paltry 12 young people transitioning don't support your sensationalism.

Big Bag of Chips

manonboard wrote: »

From a young age into teenage life, parents do let their children explore sexually in what they consider age appropriate ways. From self touching to playing doctor like most of us did.

wtf did you do when playing doctors?

I "listened" to people's hearts with a plastic stethoscope and tapped their knee with a plastic hammer!

nozzferrahhtoo

How Soon Is Now wrote: »

My answer to that was are they always correct in everything they do or say?

Erm I dealt with that. Your response to me explaining why that is a poor answer to give.... is to simply repeat the same thing at me again? Not really a two way conversation going to happen in that case then is there?

It is simply a complete non-sequitur of an answer to give. A complete dodge of the point. Entirely irrelevant. They might in fact be 100% right in everything else they said or did before. That would not mean they are here. They might be 100% wrong in everything they ever said or did before.... that too would not mean they are here and now.

The questions I asked remain unanswered then. Exactly how are we defining "Mental Illness" here? What are the trait and attributes that make something fit the definition? And how does Transgenderism specifically fit it?

Or are we (by which I mean you) doing what I suspect we are doing.... which is merely projecting an emotional response to it onto the term, and saying "Ah sure that all sounds a bit mad, shure they must be nuts".

How Soon Is Now wrote: »

What's the difference if your treating someone who thinks he's Simon Paul and Joe to someone who believes there a woman born in a man's body?

Well that is exactly the question YOU would have to answer to make the diagnosis of Mental Illness stick. It might not be subjectively different to you, sure it all seems a bit nutty in the head to you I am sure, but the underlying causes are the basis for a diagnosis, not the symptoms that the patient presents with!

If you presented with big red blotches on your skin you might have a viral infection.... or you might be having a skin reaction to a toxic chemical. Both MASSIVELY different things. It would not the red blotches (the symptom) that would be used to classify your condition. It would be the UNDERLYING CAUSES of that symptom.

So why should this be any different? Two people presenting a behaviour that seems nutty to you.... is a subjective measurement of YOU, not them. Whether we classify them as having a mental illness, or something else, depends on the underlying causes of their condition, not the symptoms of the condition itself.

Thankfully no one in the world of medicine works by your rubric or we would be classifying all kinds of things as people just being "mentally ill" including maybe epileptics and people with Tourettes. Shure dey is all actin' a bit mad Mary.... museny be rite in da head!

Franz Von Peppercorn

Mental illness or not in adults isn’t the question here either. It’s about the specific case of a child that might be transitioned.

7aubzxk43m2sni

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well that is exactly the question YOU would have to answer to make the diagnosis of Mental Illness stick. It might not be subjectively different to you, sure it all seems a bit nutty in the head to you I am sure, but the underlying causes are the basis for a diagnosis, not the symptoms that the patient presents with!

If you presented with big red blotches on your skin you might have a viral infection.... or you might be having a skin reaction to a toxic chemical. Both MASSIVELY different things. It would not the red blotches (the symptom) that would be used to classify your condition. It would be the UNDERLYING CAUSES of that symptom.

So why should this be any different? Two people presenting a behaviour that seems nutty to you.... is a subjective measurement of YOU, not them. Whether we classify them as having a mental illness, or something else, depends on the underlying causes of their condition, not the symptoms of the condition itself.

Again I'm having trouble with your analogies. If a person believes they were born in the wrong body, then the symptom for them is their body and specifically their genitalia. I think it's fair to say we don't know the underlying cause.

Isn't surgery treating the symptom and not the cause?

circadian

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

Anyone else believe that this wrong. I have a difficult time believing that the child hasn't been influenced by his parents in wanting to change from a male to a female.

https://www.theblaze.com/news/trangender-couple-transition-5-year-old-son-to-girl

The Blaze? Get the **** outta here with that, ain't nobody got time for that ****.

7aubzxk43m2sni

circadian wrote: »

The Blaze? Get the **** outta here with that, ain't nobody got time for that ****.

Great contribution to the thread, fair play

nozzferrahhtoo

Axel Uninterested Question wrote: »

I don't understand your logic here. It's not mental illness because there's an issue at the level of the brain that appears to explain their issue? There are strong links between inflammation of the brain and depression, does that mean depression is not a mental illness?

I do not think "depression" is one thing just like "Cancer" is not one thing. I think it is a catch all term for a number of conditions, all which present looking similar but have different underlying causes. Some hormonal. Some dietary. Some stress. Some as you say involving things at the level of the brain.

My "logic here" as you put it is that something physically wrong with the brain is not alone a basis for the term "mental illness". Is a brain tumor a "Mental Illness"? No. Is Tourette? No.

There are formal definitions of "Mental Illness". The question is which one are we using here, and which attributes of Transgenderism is being mapped onto it? For example one definition offered by Mental Health America is "A mental illness is a disease that causes mild to severe disturbances in thought and/or behavior, resulting in an inability to cope with life’s ordinary demands and routines." another is "A mental disorder, also called a mental illness or psychiatric disorder, is a behavioral or mental pattern that causes significant distress or impairment of personal functioning"

I am not seeing how Transgenderism fits that definition at all. Anyone Transgender I have met seems to be operating and coping perfectly well with the ordinary demands and routines of life.

Axel Uninterested Question wrote: »

If your intention is to defend transgenderism / gender dysphoria as "not a mental illness" I don't think referring to those who want to chop off healthy limbs is a good approach to take.

Why not? The simple fact of the comparison is that behaviour that might SEEM insane to us has perfectly rational explanations when we look for them. So merely seeming a bit nutty or outright insane to us might not be. Tourettes for example is now classes as a "neurological disorder" not a "Mental Illness" and as tourette.org notes "Although often treated by psychiatrists, Tourette is not a mental or psychiatric illness. Rather, it is a movement disorder that often occurs along with other psychiatric conditions". Yet their behaviour might seem pretty damn insane to us in our ignorance.

The comparison to BID is a useful one. It shows how people can be genuinely miserable and be suffering in what appears to us to be a 100% healthy and functioning body. And there are genuine explicable underlying causes for why it is happening to them. It is not that they are mentally ill.

But no my intention is not yet to "defend" anything as a case for the prosecution has not yet been made. A person merely ASSERTED it was a mental illness. No arguments, evidence, data or reasoning was presented. So there is nothing to actively defend against. All I can do is question the basis of their thinking and see if anything useful falls out. But that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. There is no "defence" warranted or required at this time.

circadian

Axel Uninterested Question wrote: »

Great contribution to the thread, fair play

The Blaze is economical with the truth, at best. I'm sure there's a story here but the Glenn Beck agenda will see to it that it's twisted to make a sensational "OMG this child is being forced to transition by evil trans parents" Alex Jones type reaction.

nozzferrahhtoo

Axel Uninterested Question wrote: »

Again I'm having trouble with your analogies. If a person believes they were born in the wrong body, then the symptom for them is their body and specifically their genitalia. I think it's fair to say we don't know the underlying cause.

Then you appear to be understanding my analogy just fine because that there is EXACTLY my point. Unless we know the underlying cause, we can not simply arbitrarily classify it. Or at least we should not. We can not just scream "Mental Illness" at it, unless we know the underlying causes of it to make that call. Just like I can not scream "Viral Infection" at red blotches on your skin unless I have some reason to think a virus and not, say, a chemical burn is in play.

Axel Uninterested Question wrote: »

Isn't surgery treating the symptom and not the cause?

Well yes. Quite possibly. Just like when we take the perfectly functioning arm off someone with BID and it alleviates their suffering. We might in fact be doing exactly what you say here.

But what other choice do we have at this time? If we find the underlying causes and concoct a treatment we can OFFER that to them too. That would be great. But until that day we have people presenting as miserable and we have one treatment to help them it seems. So why not offer it?

I would MUCH rather reach into the brain of someone with BID and correct their Body Map to stop the negative feedbacks which cause their perfectly functioning arm to be a horror to them that they want removed. I can not do that. No one can. So do we let them go on in misery for the rest of their life? Or do we offer them the ONLY thing we know could actually help?

That's the question many doctors agonise over and debate. Hacking off a perfectly functioning arm goes against the ethics of many doctors. And not others. But I know few of them, regardless of which side they are on, who scream "Mental Illness" at the issue just because it all seems a bit mad.

Zorya

Big Bag of Chips wrote: »

wtf did you do when playing doctors?

I "listened" to people's hearts with a plastic stethoscope and tapped their knee with a plastic hammer!

For someone very close to me playing doctors as a very small child involved kissing little girls on their bare bums. The bold article. The girls were queued up around the block, apparently. The bolder articles. :mad:

How Soon Is Now

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But no my intention is not yet to "defend" anything as a case for the prosecution has not yet been made. A person merely ASSERTED it was a mental illness. No arguments, evidence, data or reasoning was presented. So there is nothing to actively defend against. All I can do is question the basis of their thinking and see if anything useful falls out. But that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. There is no "defence" warranted or required at this time.

I don't know how to word the evidence arguments data or reasoning to everything you have put forward.

Why well your clearly clued in on the subject of mental health or at least you think you are.

I'm not I can only put forth my opinion of the matter and what I understand of it which I could explain a lot better in person then in text.

I don't know exactly how you put a basic explanation to what transgender people suffer from but to me and what I've seen of it they clearly have enough issues that it effects who they think they are to a massive degree.

That's why I used the example of someone with split personality which is seen as a mental problem. If your brain is telling you your not the gender you where born there has to be some kinda mental issue there.

If you think I'm wrong grand it makes no difference to me because far as I can see neither of us have anyway of knowing other then what our own brains tell us.

Which again is why I can't just base my opinion on the subject on what certain medical professionals say.

nozzferrahhtoo

How Soon Is Now wrote: »

I don't know how to word the evidence arguments data or reasoning to everything you have put forward.

And since I do not understand your position at all, I am in no position to help you with that. But these threads tend to last a long time. There is no rush. If you manage to put something together at any point, I will be still here. Take your time.

How Soon Is Now wrote: »

If your brain is telling you your not the gender you where born there has to be some kinda mental issue there.

And again, that is simply not something we have reason to think true at this time.

Which is why I used the BID example. When people first started presenting with the request that they wanted a limb removed it seemed clear to us that there was "some kinda mental issue there".

But now we think we might have an explanation for it. A very simple neurological one. The brain maintains a kind of "map" of the body. The brain does not have a part of that map for the unwanted limb. So the limb feels alien, weird, intrusive and even painful to the patient. So they want it gone.

Simple as that. It COULD be that simple, or something analogous at least, for people who are Transgender. We just do not know at this time. So any kind of classification such as leaping to call it a "Mental Illness" is just arbitrary and subjective. You are merely jumping the gun entirely. All based, it seems anyway, on nothing more than it seeming a bit mad to you.

James Brown

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

Anyone else believe that this wrong. I have a difficult time believing that the child hasn't been influenced by his parents in wanting to change from a male to a female.

https://www.theblaze.com/news/trangender-couple-transition-5-year-old-son-to-girl

Beats getting upset about politics and taxes and such. If I'd my way baptisms would be illegal until the chisler is old enough to be insane on his or her own time.

How Soon Is Now

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And since I do not understand your position at all, I am in no position to help you with that. But these threads tend to last a long time. There is no rush. If you manage to put something together at any point, I will be still here. Take your time.



And again, that is simply not something we have reason to think true at this time.

Which is why I used the BID example. When people first started presenting with the request that they wanted a limb removed it seemed clear to us that there was "some kinda mental issue there".

But now we think we might have an explanation for it. A very simple neurological one. The brain maintains a kind of "map" of the body. The brain does not have a part of that map for the unwanted limb. So the limb feels alien, weird, intrusive and even painful to the patient. So they want it gone.

Simple as that. It COULD be that simple, or something analogous at least, for people who are Transgender. We just do not know at this time. So any kind of classification such as leaping to call it a "Mental Illness" is just arbitrary and subjective. You are merely jumping the gun entirely. All based, it seems anyway, on nothing more than it seeming a bit mad to you.

The whole thing is more then just a bit mad in fairness!

To not accept the gender your given threw birth and to change your body in ways that sometimes ruins your entire appearance I just dunno where to start with the issues someone must have.

I don't have the time or need to look into the every ins and outs of the subject and spend my days and night on here discussing it.

I think unless we wanna keep going around in circles here we have to just see it as something we both have different opinions on otherwise it never ends!

Maybe it's best left at that because there's nothing either of us can say to change opinions here.

B.A._Baracus

I honestly couldn't give a bollocks about this.
Not that I am a heartless, self-absorbed douche. It's just that there are too many weird people in this world. Nothing you say or do will change it.

So... Why bother. Messed up huh?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

I honestly couldn't give a bollocks about this.
Not that I am a heartless, self-absorbed douche. It's just that there are too many weird people in this world. Nothing you say or do will change it.

So... Why bother. Messed up huh?

Read that twice and still not sure which side of the argument you're on....!

Franz Von Peppercorn

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Then you appear to be understanding my analogy just fine because that there is EXACTLY my point. Unless we know the underlying cause, we can not simply arbitrarily classify it. Or at least we should not. We can not just scream "Mental Illness" at it, unless we know the underlying causes of it to make that call. Just like I can not scream "Viral Infection" at red blotches on your skin unless I have some reason to think a virus and not, say, a chemical burn is in play.



Well yes. Quite possibly. Just like when we take the perfectly functioning arm off someone with BID and it alleviates their suffering. We might in fact be doing exactly what you say here.

But what other choice do we have at this time? If we find the underlying causes and concoct a treatment we can OFFER that to them too. That would be great. But until that day we have people presenting as miserable and we have one treatment to help them it seems. So why not offer it?

I would MUCH rather reach into the brain of someone with BID and correct their Body Map to stop the negative feedbacks which cause their perfectly functioning arm to be a horror to them that they want removed. I can not do that. No one can. So do we let them go on in misery for the rest of their life? Or do we offer them the ONLY thing we know could actually help?

That's the question many doctors agonise over and debate. Hacking off a perfectly functioning arm goes against the ethics of many doctors. And not others. But I know few of them, regardless of which side they are on, who scream "Mental Illness" at the issue just because it all seems a bit mad.

It was, to be fair, a mental illness until 2013. Then it wasn’t.

But we seem to be stuck on adults once again. Which isn’t the topic here.

AllForIt

I have heard many transgender folk in the last year talk about how from a very very young age that they felt the way they do. I find this quite interesting psychologically.

As a male ghey which has noting to do with transgenderism I did bake as a teenager. I never liked football or boxing. I am interested in sport, just not the more macho team sports. I always just wanted to do what I liked, things that interested me and to hell with social conventions. At secondary school in the 80's I ditched Mechanical Drawing for Home Economics which entailed cooking and sewing. I was interested in cooking, not the sewing but I had to do it anyway. 3 other heterosexual guys joined me in my decision and we were the first guys in the school to do this in the 80's, in our school. I recall being a little embarrassed about the sewing as it seemed like a very 'girly' thing to do. As it turned out it is quite handy to be able to use a needle and thread and indeed a sewing machine. Made a shirt at school, horrible thing it was and threw it into the bin when it was marked.

Anyway whats the point. Well, my experience informs me that fashion (dresses, long hair), interests (baking, sewing, football), has absolutely noting to do with one's gender, rather just social conventions that have come about by the way human society developed over eons. In other words playing with a doll, or sewing, does not make you a woman and so on.

Over the last few decades where homosexuality has been accepted, and women are not bound to the kitchen and are driven to show they can do anything a man can do, society has come to realize that superficial gender roles, apart from roles played in procreation, are just that, superficial. We all all just humans at the end of the day with minuscule differences between the genders.

But the transgender folk in this era of equality seem to disagree with all that which I find to be both fascinating and bewildering. To say one wishes to be 'treated as a woman' seems to me to be a massive backward step. Exactly what does that mean? That men would open doors for you? Pay the restaurant bill after a date? Cisgender woman don't wan't to be 'treated as a woman' anymore, except of course in specific issues that concern their biology.

So to tie my comments into the point of this thread - I have heard over the last year a lot of transgender adults talk about their experience where they say they felt the way they do from a very very young age, even younger than 5. I believe a child is capable at that age, as they are capable of picking up a language, to be aware of gender stereotypes. I believe it's quite possible for a child mentally to either have a extreme aversion to the gender stereotypical role to which they feel expected to fulfill in society, or an extreme affinity to their opposite stereotypical biological gender, or a mixture of both. In which case I would call that a psychological mental condition, not an illness as such.

Now I know my comments might come across as hurtful to some on this, they are not intended to be, but the fact remains there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that there is such a thing as a female mind in a male body or visa versa. Just like Nozz says there is no evidence that it is a mental illness either.

Gimme A Pound

circadian wrote: »

The Blaze is economical with the truth, at best.

Aye, but it's lifted from the Daily Mail. Now I know the default reaction to that is "Boo, the Daily Mail" but the parents were interviewed, their quotes were included (and they weren't selective) and it's mentioned that social workers determined there was nothing to be concerned about. It's plain as day what the story is being used for, but it is a factual one.

Wibbs

I'd be generally in agreement with most of your post A, but..

AllForIt wrote: »

but the fact remains there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that there is such a thing as a female mind in a male body or visa versa.

There are some interesting hints that there are a) some general differences between male and female brains and b) that some folks may have more of a "male" brain in a woman's body and vice versa. Here's an example of where they imaged men and women, gay and straight.

The upshot was in their words:

The scans reveal that in gay people, key structures of the brain governing emotion, mood, anxiety and aggressiveness resemble those in straight people of the opposite sex.

I've even read studies where they found that of all things the fingerprints of people are gendered to quite a degree and that Gay folks more resemble the prints of straight people of the opposite sex. My personal opinion is that these are hints and somewhat overblown and most certainly not the whole picture, but I find it interesting nonetheless. It would certainly show that the notion that being Gay was a "lifestyle choice" was a nonsense.

Now if one imagined this brain difference was very extreme in one direction in some folks then you could literally have a "female" brain in a man's body.

StinkyMunkey

I believed in santa and the Easter bunny at age 5. I was totally oblivious to gender identity.

My mothers and fathers job was to protect me against anything harmful, whether that be from outside influences or myself.

I'm all for letting people choose their own identity, once their brain is developed enough to make an informed decision.

Are we in an age that promotes cosmetic surgery for 5 year olds??? Because no matter what you call it, that's what transitioning is, you will still die biologically the sex you were born regardless of what that thing between your ears say.

The beauty of 5 year olds is the innocence of being five years old. You don't have to suppress how your child feels or wants the act within reason, but I'd be fcuked if I'd allow my five year old to choose to transition.

nozzferrahhtoo

How Soon Is Now wrote: »

The whole thing is more then just a bit mad in fairness!

To you. Which is what my point has been all along. It being mad TO YOU is meaningless to anything but you. It is certainly not the basis upon which we should be making classifications of Mental Illness.

As I said before, the same could be said about homosexuality. People thought that was a madness too at some point. For no apparent actual reason it seems. It just all seemed a bit mad TO THEM.

Thankfully our classification methodologies have been getting better over time. Some people simply have not kept with that program.

How Soon Is Now wrote: »

To not accept the gender your given threw birth and to change your body in ways that sometimes ruins your entire appearance I just dunno where to start with the issues someone must have.

No clearly YOU do not.

To not accept the arm you were given at birth and change your body in ways that ruins your appearance..... same thing huh? Yet we DO know where to start with the issues those people have. Because we are starting to get an idea on what causes things like BID.

The place to "start" with the issues of these people is by understanding them. The place NOT to start is to subjectively think it all seems mad to you, and hence must be a mental illness.

However just on your direct point about people accepting the gender of their birth. These people would tell you that IS what they are in fact doing. That they are accepting and embracing their gender. But that their body is the one out of line with it. What you, to their mind, are asking them to do is not accept the gender of their birth but accept the gender dictated to them entirely and solely by their genitalia. And they do not see a reason to have to do that any more than they would if they were a homosexual man and you shouted at them that their male genitals dictate they should have sexual interest for people with female genitals. Who and what they are is not founded solely on the contents of their pants.

How Soon Is Now wrote: »

Maybe it's best left at that because there's nothing either of us can say to change opinions here.

Speak for yourself.

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

It was, to be fair, a mental illness until 2013. Then it wasn’t.

That is my point exactly. We are getting better at classification of these things. We are not simply lumping things that seem a bit mad into one big bag "Mental Illness". We are starting to ask what exactly Mental Illness even means, and then looking at things to see if it actually fits in some way.

Homosexuality was in the DSM at one point too. Having spent time around people with Tourette they can seem entirely off their rocker at times as well. But as I said to a user above, the more we base our classifications off underlying causes and not symptoms, the more we will get a classification that actually means something.

Zorya

Don't get the constant conflating of trans with homosexuality for comparison. Two entirely different things.

The idea of male / female brain does not explain very sudden increases in reported feeling of gender incongruence, up to 3% in parts of US. More likely it is social fashion, contagion and education programs that are unscientific. If an objective factor is to be sought outside of brain plasticity or social conditioning I would incline more towards endocrine disruption from xenohormones. Which aught to be seriously studied.

ohnonotgmail

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Homosexuality was in the DSM at one point too. Having spent time around people with Tourette they can seem entirely off their rocker at times as well. But as I said to a user above, the more we base our classifications off underlying causes and not symptoms, the more we will get a classification that actually means something.

It was only removed from the DSM in my lifetime. Not exactly ancient history.

klaaaz

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

I believed in santa and the Easter bunny at age 5. I was totally oblivious to gender identity.

My mothers and fathers job was to protect me against anything harmful, whether that be from outside influences or myself.

I'm all for letting people choose their own identity, once their brain is developed enough to make an informed decision.

Are we in an age that promotes cosmetic surgery for 5 year olds??? Because no matter what you call it, that's what transitioning is, you will still die biologically the sex you were born regardless of what that thing between your ears say.

The beauty of 5 year olds is the innocence of being five years old. You don't have to suppress how your child feels or wants the act within reason, but I'd be fcuked if I'd allow my five year old to choose to transition.

Good for you turning out fine in your gender identity, a tiny tiny minority do not and do know from an early young age that something is genuinely amiss.

There is no surgery performed on 5 yr olds in transition, another myth.

circadian

Andy Alive Greengrocer wrote: »

Aye, but it's lifted from the Daily Mail. Now I know the default reaction to that is "Boo, the Daily Mail" but the parents were interviewed, their quotes were included (and they weren't selective) and it's mentioned that social workers determined there was nothing to be concerned about. It's plain as day what the story is being used for, but it is a factual one.

I don't see why you only quoted that part of my post when I clearly said that "I'm sure there's a story there" I don't disagree that there is a base story nor do I disagree that it's being used to enrage.