WittyProfileName2 [she/her]

Alright I’ve blocked 'em. Not gonna bother talking to a brick wall. You’ve saved me a lot of time.

Seriously?

Thanks for the heads up.

I’m having difficulty understanding that question.

Transmedicalism is the idea that the only trans identities that are valid are those that link directly to a formal diagnosis of gender dysphoria and that those identities should also only be respected if the trans person in question is actively undergoing some form of gender affirming care.

Due to its exclusionary nature and pathologising of trans people as a disease to be treated, its largely viewed as a problematic and outdated idea of gender identity amongst the larger trans community (although it does have its defenders) but it remains entrenched within discourse around gender identity in the UK because so much of the legal/social component of transition has been gatekept behind medical transition. For example, the changing of gender markers on legal documents.

I worry that too much of a focus on what is or isn’t necessary for someone to be a trans person, verges a little on the edge of transmedicalism. There’s a broad array of trans experiences and one isn’t any more valid than another.

If you are genuinely interested in reading more into transgender identities, I could link you towards some basic materials.

You are correct that gender dysphoria is not necessarily something a trans person has. Prior to the current political sabotage of the gender service, the role of the NHS was to determine what gender affirming care was necessary. A lot of the anti-trans push has been to take as many of these treatments off the board as possible.

Last month the Welsh Gender Service was pressured into cancelling all gender affirming surgeries that had been booked, no consultation, just a blanket call from above that involved no medical experts in the consideration. They did this on the demands of a single Member of Senedd.

All the pro-trans side ever want in this debate is better medical outcomes for trans people. If that’s bringing politics to medicine then idk what the fuck apolitical medicine is.

The problem is that the decision to prevent the use of puberty blockers isn’t based on the decisions of medical experts but rather political groups more determined to erase trans people.

The Cass review, for example has been heavily criticised for its methodological flaws.

As someone who is both trans and has experience working in a related field of medicine it has been heartbreaking to see the NHS warped so cruelly by bigots and their agenda.

I have even heard some claims that puberty can fix gender dysphoria (although I don’t know how scientific this is, so don’t quote me).

It certainly didn’t fix it for me, I spent much of my teenage years trying to end my own life largely because of my gender dysphoria.

It’s the age we’ve decided that someone can make life changing decisions at.

Ok, firstly discarding Gillick competence (which is legally a warzone around gender transition right now but had previously allowed for gender affirming care for under-16s) the age that a child is allowed to make a decision on their own healthcare in the UK is 16 not 18, unless you see trans people as inherently less capable than cis, I don’t see why you’d push the age back further specifically for gender affirming care.

But more importantly, going through the wrong puberty isn’t life changing?

Should be 18, pending a doctor’s approval

Why?