Helen Lewis: "well-meaning commentators make confident assertions for youth gender medicine." Sorry, not buying that "well-meaning." They are, for the most part, bullying, virtue-signaling ideologues who can't tolerate opposing views.
"The Liberal Misinformation Bubble About Youth Gender Medicine,"
I am medical professional and former "puberty blockers" user (for medical reasons unrelated to gender issues) I actually agree that trans women in women's sports at the collegiate level are inappropriate, and that people thinking they can chose their gender by merely adopting the social cues associated with a gender (dress, hair, affectations -Caitlyn Jenner I am looking at you) is overly simplistic. However, I also think adults should be able to present as whatever gender they choose, without being discriminated against in employment or housing. I also think it is simple courtesy to use the pronouns they prefer.
IMHO Helen Lewis and other writers do not make a useful contribution to the discussion when they do not distinguish between "puberty blockers" and "hormones", just like discussions of "drugs" that do not distinguish between pot and Fentanyl are useless. I think giving kids the ability to delay the onset of secondary sexual characteristics until they are 18 and able to decide what gender they want to present as is a reasonable middle path between letting kids decide for themselves at an early age,(on the one hand) and forcing them to go through puberty as a gender they feel uncomfortable as (on the other). I think the way to cut down on what I consider the fatuous TIkTok driven gender dysphoria among adolescent girls is to eliminate smart phones from schools and restrict social media access for children. I think the age of social medica consent should be 18, but I realize I am in the minority on this one, and would settle for 16 as they do in other countries. Where this places me on the political spectrum, I have no idea.
The idea that giving children the option to delay the onset of puberty until age 18 represents a "reasonable middle path" may appear superficially balanced. However, it rests on a number of premises that deserve closer scrutiny—both medically and historically.
No historical precedent for "choosing a gender":
Throughout human history, children have not been expected to determine their "gender presentation." The notion that gender is a matter of individual, prepubescent choice is a recent development, arising from late-20th-century theories in postmodern philosophy and gender studies—not from long-standing psychological or medical understandings of child development. In all but the most exceptional cultural contexts, biological sex and social role were treated as stable referents throughout childhood and adolescence.
The concept of "gender identity" is culturally constructed and historically novel:
The idea that children have an innate internal gender that may diverge from their biological sex is not grounded in any durable anthropological consensus. Rather, it gained traction in academic and activist circles in the past few decades, influenced by thinkers like Judith Butler. This ideology has spread rapidly through institutions, but it is not the product of robust scientific validation. It is a contested philosophical stance, not a universally accepted medical truth.
Puberty blockers are not a neutral “pause button”:
Contrary to earlier claims, it is now widely acknowledged that puberty blockers are not fully reversible. The Endocrine Society and other medical bodies note that data on long-term outcomes is lacking. Emerging evidence suggests potential permanent side effects, including:
Impaired bone density and possible lifelong effects on skeletal development
Disruption of normal brain maturation, including regions involved in decision-making and emotional regulation
Potential infertility when followed by cross-sex hormones
Reports of anorgasmia and lifelong loss of sexual function, as seen in some young adults who began blockers early
Unknown effects on metabolic, endocrine, and neurological systems during critical developmental windows
The practice is based on an ideological, not scientific, foundation:
Medicalization of gender distress in youth—especially prepubescent children—is not driven by biological diagnostics or predictive markers. It relies on a child’s self-declared identity, often under the influence of social media, peer contagion, and cultural messaging. This makes it distinct from other pediatric interventions, which are based on objective pathology.
Ethical concerns about informed consent:
Children cannot meaningfully consent to life-altering treatments that impact their fertility, sexual function, and future embodiment. The idea that blocking puberty simply "delays" decision-making assumes the child will return to a neutral developmental baseline at age 18, which is not supported by clinical outcomes. Many children who begin blockers proceed directly to cross-sex hormones, creating a de facto transition pathway that is difficult to reverse once started.
The risks of social and psychological reinforcement:
Once a child is affirmed in a cross-sex identity and started on medical interventions, the likelihood of returning to comfort with their natal sex diminishes dramatically. This calls into question the idea that this is a "neutral" choice. It also raises concerns that adult anxieties about gender nonconformity or same-sex attraction may be fueling inappropriate medical responses.
Desistance and Sexual Orientation:
A substantial body of research prior to the medicalization trend found that most children with gender dysphoria—if not socially or medically transitioned—would desist by adolescence and grow up to be gay or lesbian. Blocking puberty interrupts this developmental trajectory, potentially medicalizing what might otherwise have been a natural variation in gender expression or sexual orientation.
Alternative paths are underexplored and underprovided:
Psychotherapeutic support that addresses the roots of gender-related distress—whether due to trauma, autism, same-sex attraction, or rigid gender roles—is often dismissed or deemed "conversion therapy," despite evidence that many adolescents resolve dysphoria without medical intervention.
In conclusion, while well-intentioned, the proposal to delay puberty in children as a compromise misunderstands both the historical and medical context. It represents not a middle path but an unprecedented and ethically fraught intervention with long-term consequences we are only beginning to understand. The medical community must prioritize evidence, caution, and non-invasive support—especially when dealing with the developing bodies and minds of children.
Of course, before modern medical advancements, there were lots of conditions that just had to be accepted, so there is not any historical precedent. If you were infertile, you just had to accept it. Now there are all kinds of treatments that have no historical precedent. I completely agree that some/many/most cases of gender dysphoria, especially those of adolescent (as opposed to childhood) onset are induced by social media, which is why kids shouldn't be permitted to access social media until age 16 or older.
Giving puberty blockers to an adolescent with gender dysphoria is intended to give them time to receive mental health treatments that address "roots of gender-related distress—whether due to trauma, autism, same-sex attraction, or rigid gender roles"
while keeping open the child's options. The role of research should be to determine which of these kids are just gay, which are really transgender, and which are just going through a TikTok induced phase of rebellion. It would be great is you would share the links to the "substantial body of research prior to the medicalization trend found that most children with gender dysphoria—if not socially or medically transitioned—would desist by adolescence and grow up to be gay or lesbian."
Starting kids on puberty blockers is not to be taken lightly, with an attempt to explain possible side effects to the patient and parents. It is a decision best undertaken after substantial mental health evaluation and treatment for other possible causes of gender dysphoria, but transition should always be considered an option in cases where no other cause in found, not something that is completely banned
Helen Lewis: "well-meaning commentators make confident assertions for youth gender medicine." Sorry, not buying that "well-meaning." They are, for the most part, bullying, virtue-signaling ideologues who can't tolerate opposing views.
"The Liberal Misinformation Bubble About Youth Gender Medicine,"
I am medical professional and former "puberty blockers" user (for medical reasons unrelated to gender issues) I actually agree that trans women in women's sports at the collegiate level are inappropriate, and that people thinking they can chose their gender by merely adopting the social cues associated with a gender (dress, hair, affectations -Caitlyn Jenner I am looking at you) is overly simplistic. However, I also think adults should be able to present as whatever gender they choose, without being discriminated against in employment or housing. I also think it is simple courtesy to use the pronouns they prefer.
IMHO Helen Lewis and other writers do not make a useful contribution to the discussion when they do not distinguish between "puberty blockers" and "hormones", just like discussions of "drugs" that do not distinguish between pot and Fentanyl are useless. I think giving kids the ability to delay the onset of secondary sexual characteristics until they are 18 and able to decide what gender they want to present as is a reasonable middle path between letting kids decide for themselves at an early age,(on the one hand) and forcing them to go through puberty as a gender they feel uncomfortable as (on the other). I think the way to cut down on what I consider the fatuous TIkTok driven gender dysphoria among adolescent girls is to eliminate smart phones from schools and restrict social media access for children. I think the age of social medica consent should be 18, but I realize I am in the minority on this one, and would settle for 16 as they do in other countries. Where this places me on the political spectrum, I have no idea.
The idea that giving children the option to delay the onset of puberty until age 18 represents a "reasonable middle path" may appear superficially balanced. However, it rests on a number of premises that deserve closer scrutiny—both medically and historically.
No historical precedent for "choosing a gender":
Throughout human history, children have not been expected to determine their "gender presentation." The notion that gender is a matter of individual, prepubescent choice is a recent development, arising from late-20th-century theories in postmodern philosophy and gender studies—not from long-standing psychological or medical understandings of child development. In all but the most exceptional cultural contexts, biological sex and social role were treated as stable referents throughout childhood and adolescence.
The concept of "gender identity" is culturally constructed and historically novel:
The idea that children have an innate internal gender that may diverge from their biological sex is not grounded in any durable anthropological consensus. Rather, it gained traction in academic and activist circles in the past few decades, influenced by thinkers like Judith Butler. This ideology has spread rapidly through institutions, but it is not the product of robust scientific validation. It is a contested philosophical stance, not a universally accepted medical truth.
Puberty blockers are not a neutral “pause button”:
Contrary to earlier claims, it is now widely acknowledged that puberty blockers are not fully reversible. The Endocrine Society and other medical bodies note that data on long-term outcomes is lacking. Emerging evidence suggests potential permanent side effects, including:
Impaired bone density and possible lifelong effects on skeletal development
Disruption of normal brain maturation, including regions involved in decision-making and emotional regulation
Potential infertility when followed by cross-sex hormones
Reports of anorgasmia and lifelong loss of sexual function, as seen in some young adults who began blockers early
Unknown effects on metabolic, endocrine, and neurological systems during critical developmental windows
The practice is based on an ideological, not scientific, foundation:
Medicalization of gender distress in youth—especially prepubescent children—is not driven by biological diagnostics or predictive markers. It relies on a child’s self-declared identity, often under the influence of social media, peer contagion, and cultural messaging. This makes it distinct from other pediatric interventions, which are based on objective pathology.
Ethical concerns about informed consent:
Children cannot meaningfully consent to life-altering treatments that impact their fertility, sexual function, and future embodiment. The idea that blocking puberty simply "delays" decision-making assumes the child will return to a neutral developmental baseline at age 18, which is not supported by clinical outcomes. Many children who begin blockers proceed directly to cross-sex hormones, creating a de facto transition pathway that is difficult to reverse once started.
The risks of social and psychological reinforcement:
Once a child is affirmed in a cross-sex identity and started on medical interventions, the likelihood of returning to comfort with their natal sex diminishes dramatically. This calls into question the idea that this is a "neutral" choice. It also raises concerns that adult anxieties about gender nonconformity or same-sex attraction may be fueling inappropriate medical responses.
Desistance and Sexual Orientation:
A substantial body of research prior to the medicalization trend found that most children with gender dysphoria—if not socially or medically transitioned—would desist by adolescence and grow up to be gay or lesbian. Blocking puberty interrupts this developmental trajectory, potentially medicalizing what might otherwise have been a natural variation in gender expression or sexual orientation.
Alternative paths are underexplored and underprovided:
Psychotherapeutic support that addresses the roots of gender-related distress—whether due to trauma, autism, same-sex attraction, or rigid gender roles—is often dismissed or deemed "conversion therapy," despite evidence that many adolescents resolve dysphoria without medical intervention.
In conclusion, while well-intentioned, the proposal to delay puberty in children as a compromise misunderstands both the historical and medical context. It represents not a middle path but an unprecedented and ethically fraught intervention with long-term consequences we are only beginning to understand. The medical community must prioritize evidence, caution, and non-invasive support—especially when dealing with the developing bodies and minds of children.
Of course, before modern medical advancements, there were lots of conditions that just had to be accepted, so there is not any historical precedent. If you were infertile, you just had to accept it. Now there are all kinds of treatments that have no historical precedent. I completely agree that some/many/most cases of gender dysphoria, especially those of adolescent (as opposed to childhood) onset are induced by social media, which is why kids shouldn't be permitted to access social media until age 16 or older.
Giving puberty blockers to an adolescent with gender dysphoria is intended to give them time to receive mental health treatments that address "roots of gender-related distress—whether due to trauma, autism, same-sex attraction, or rigid gender roles"
while keeping open the child's options. The role of research should be to determine which of these kids are just gay, which are really transgender, and which are just going through a TikTok induced phase of rebellion. It would be great is you would share the links to the "substantial body of research prior to the medicalization trend found that most children with gender dysphoria—if not socially or medically transitioned—would desist by adolescence and grow up to be gay or lesbian."
Starting kids on puberty blockers is not to be taken lightly, with an attempt to explain possible side effects to the patient and parents. It is a decision best undertaken after substantial mental health evaluation and treatment for other possible causes of gender dysphoria, but transition should always be considered an option in cases where no other cause in found, not something that is completely banned
No the World Doesn't Hate America Of course they don't, they hate 47 and the MAGAts who are currently running America (into the ground)
https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2025/06/11/us-image-declines-in-many-nations-amid-low-confidence-in-trump/#:~:text=In%20most%20nations%2C%20views%20about,on%20our%20survey%20fieldwork%20period.
Dunno about other countries. There are places I wouldn't go. To be fair, there are places in the US I wouldn't go either.