8 ms·
While I completely understand the slippery slope concept, we ban all kinds of things for under 18s based on morals. Why couldn't these be any different? How els
by cmilton 1y ago
While I completely understand the slippery slope concept, we ban all kinds of things for under 18s based on morals. Why couldn't these be any different? How else does a society decide as a whole what they are for or against. Obviously, there should be limits.
- afavour 1y agoThe question is always “whose morals”. I think society as a whole is in agreement that minors are better off without access to pornography, for example. But the arrangement OP is outlining is one where a minority are able to force their morality on a broader population that doesn’t agree with it.
- lelanthran 1y agoYou might be wrong there. While the majority does not oppose homosexual relationships they are against affirmative transgender treatments for minors.
- kennywinker 1y agoYes, but since when do we allow the majority to dictate what healthcare options are available? The mode for treating trans kids is puberty blockers until they’re 18 and then they can choose their own treatment - but that pathway is being blocked by more and more laws and fear mongering about kids being transitioned against their will
- bobalob 1y ago[flagged]
- wredcoll 1y ago> Many later detransition [Citation needed]
- Diti 1y agoA simple web search could have given you the citation. “The Amsterdam Cohort of Gender Dysphoria Study (1972–2015): Trends in Prevalence, Treatment, and Regrets” (DOI: 10.1016/j.jsxm.2018.01.016). The word “many” is misleading – it’s less than 1 %. It’s not nothing, but it’s low.
- VBprogrammer 1y agoCan I just point out the irony of this statement in the context of my comment up thread.
- Manuel_D 1y agohttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29463477/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29463477/ This isn't the desistence rate of children, this is the regret rate of adults who transition.
- bobalob 1y agoThat ~1% figure is unlikely to reflect the full picture of regret. That paper defines regret very narrowly: only including the patients who made an appointment with their original medical team to discuss regret, and only if they regret surgical removal of their sex organs. Plus, a large number of their total cohort were lost to follow-up.
- Manuel_D 1y agohttps://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8039393/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8039393/ All the studies among gender dysphoric children who are not prescribed puberty blockers show desistence rates over 70% There are studies that show very low desistence rates - many in the single digits. But those are studies among children that are given puberty blockers.
- heavyset_go 1y agoYou're citing a paper the Alliance for Defending Freedom regularly uses[1] to support the conspiracy theory that doctors are "turning gay kids trans". The study itself uses criteria for gender dysphoria that's been outdated for decades. Here's what more reliable studies from the American Academy of Pediatrics, the largest professional group of pediatricians in the country, say[2]: > Gender Identity 5 Years After Social Transition > We found that an average of 5 years after their initial social transition, 7.3% of youth had retransitioned at least once. At the end of this period, most youth identified as binary transgender youth (94%), including 1.3% who retransitioned to another identity before returning to their binary transgender identity. A total of 2.5% of youth identified as cisgender and 3.5% as nonbinary. Later cisgender identities were more common among youth whose initial social transition occurred before age 6 years; their retransitions often occurred before age 10 years. [1] https://downloads.regulations.gov/ED-2022-OCR-0143-141953/attachment_12.pdf https://downloads.regulations.gov/ED-2022-OCR-0143-141953/at... [2] https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/150/2/e2021056082/186992/Gender-Identity-5-Years-After-Social-Transition?autologincheck=redirected https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/150/2/e20210...
- kennywinker 1y ago> Blocking puberty until eighteen is a harmful intervention in itself For a trans kid, going thru the wrong puberty is harmful. The best thing would be hormones at puberty. But given issues around informed consent, puberty blockers are a valid compromise. Calling them harmful without considering the harm of the alternative is not honest.
- h4x0rr 1y agoAnd who decides if a puberty is "wrong"? The child itself certainly isn't mature enough.
- ffin 1y agoI think this question concedes that there is some possibility that one could experience an incorrect puberty. Given the definition of maturity is being fully grown, this comes across as an inherently unhelpful thing to ask. If we say “only once someone is fully grown they are able to determine if they experienced the incorrect puberty” then this makes it impossible to help children who are going to experience the incorrect puberty. Unless we have some way to determine a child is trans without any input from them, there becomes no way to help them.
- account42 1y agoThe possibility of being unable to help people is not an excuse for hurting them or others. Generally if you can't know the correct action than you should stick to the status quo. What's next, gene therapy because the embryo might want to be a different race when it grows up?
- bobalob 1y agoPuberty is a stage of natural maturation of the body. There is only one, as per your sex, and you can't go through the wrong one. The puberty of the opposite sex is not an option. This conception of the "wrong puberty" as something that needs to be blocked is as absurd as all that "born in the wrong body" ideological nonsense. Most importantly, children can't meaningfully consent to having their sexual function permanently damaged.
- heavyset_go 1y agoMany? You mean less than 1%[1]? > Overall, 33% underwent transmasculine procedures and 67% transfemenine procedures. The prevalence of regret among patients undergoing transmasculine and transfemenine surgeries was <1% (IC <1%–<1%) and 1% (CI <1%–2%), respectively. That's less than the regret rate for life saving surgeries lol [1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8099405/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8099405/
- AlexandrB 1y agoIf you look at the studies examined, many of them are from the 90s and all are from before 2019. The rate of transition in minors has increased rapidly in the last 10 years, and it's not very convincing to see data about mostly adults and assume it's going to apply to this new situation.
- kennywinker 1y agoThere isn’t much data, because not many people (child or adult) medically transition. But if you want to follow the data we need to do what we were doing before all this moral panic about trans kids kicked in: cautiously allow kids to transition(1), and collect data about outcomes. It’s disingenuous to complain about bad data in one breath, while blocking any path that would create new data. (1) by transition i mean socially transition and go on puberty blockers if they want them.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- BobaFloutist 1y agoBetter ban hip replacements ¯ \ _ ( ツ ) _ / ¯
- BobaFloutist 1y agoIt is legal in all 50 rates for teenage girls to get breast augmentation surgery in order to better match gender expectations, but god forbid they want to remove them.
- account42 1y agoThey shouldn't be getting that either.
- BobaFloutist 1y agoBut somehow people are hardly discussing it, let alone trying to make it illegal.
- lelanthran 1y ago> Yes, but since when do we allow the majority to dictate what healthcare options are available? We've always done so - popular opinion as reflected by the voters dictate that you aren't getting a prescription for arsenic (anymore? Or crack cocaine, for that matter.) The government, for good or bad, regulates all healthcare, and that government is guided by its voters. The majority of voters don't see this as a bigger problem than the issue they are currently voting on.
- thaumasiotes 1y ago> We've always done so - popular opinion as reflected by the voters dictate that you aren't getting a prescription for arsenic (anymore? Or crack cocaine, for that matter.) That began in 1906; it's hardly something we've "always done".
- kennywinker 1y ago> We've always done so - popular opinion as reflected by the voters dictate that you aren't getting a prescription for arsenic (anymore? Or crack cocaine, for that matter.) As someone else pointed out, the idea of gov deciding what our doctors can and cant give us is a VERY modern concept. But your examples: arsnic & crack 1. Cocaine is legal for doctors to prescribe and use in specific circumstances. What is legally prohibited is recreational use. Most of the restrictions on use are due to the threat of addiction, not the threat of appropriate medical use. 2. Arsnic is similarly entirely legal for medical use. Restrictions are around putting it in FOOD because it’s POISON. Nobody is saying you can’t treat cancer with it, if it’s shown to be effective. Your examples are not examples of the majority regulating medical care for individuals.
- Manuel_D 1y ago"Transitioned against their will" is a very crude way of articulating the tradeoffs of prescribing puberty blockers. The core issue at hand is that absent puberty blockers, somewhere between 60-80% do not persist with a cross-sex gender identity after going through their natal puberty. Psychologists attempted to predict which patients would persist in a cross sex gender identity and which would not, but they were never able to do so. When patients are given puberty blockers, desistence rates are miniscule, in the single digits. Proponents of hormonal intervention insist that this is proof that doctors are selecting kids that would persist in a cross sex gender absent blockers. But that's hard to reconcile with psychologists previous failures to predict persistence. While they're billed as giving "time to think", it's pretty much impossible to deny that blockers are causing patients who would have desisted in their cross sex gender identity if they went through their natal puberty. It's not just conservative American States that are changing course on blockers for children: Finland, Sweden, the UK, Italy, Denmark, and Norway have all stopped prescription of blockers in children. Plenty of other countries never allowed it in the first place.
- wreedtyt 1y agoIt seems like you're referring to a specific study, could you link it?
- Manuel_D 1y agoA multitude of studies, not just one. This is the review covering the outcomes of gender dysphoric children who aren't given blockers: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44546443 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44546443
- Dylan16807 1y ago> "Transitioned against their will" is a very crude way of articulating the tradeoffs of prescribing puberty blockers. That is an extremely generous interpretation. I think you're giving way too much credit to the average person that uses that argument. Also I really have to wonder how much of that desistance is giving up versus actually being satisfied.
- Hikikomori 1y agoSo majority chooses what healthcare options are available?
- schrodinger 1y agoI'm going to assume you're asking in good faith, and the short answer is yes — this is already happening! Before engaging in what could be a huge discussion here, I suggest you do some quick searching about legal risks of performing life-saving abortion procedures, gender-affirming care for prison inmates, and workplaces choosing whether the health insurance they provide employees covers gender-affirming care as starting points to learn about the sad state of affairs.
- lelanthran 1y ago> So majority chooses what healthcare options are available? You sound surprised, so maybe you really don't know this: this state of affairs is how it's always been, and is likely to continue well into the future. The government regulates all medicines, all medical procedures, and all medical practices. It's literally one of the many jobs of government.
- AaronAPU 1y agoBut what if they ban something like robbery? Then the robbers won’t be able to rob things, thus depriving them of their right to choose robbery.
- brookst 1y agoGovernment run did not always mean majority ruled. Many times rights of the minority have been ruled to be important, as in cases like abortion. In today’s US, we’re trending toward enforcing minority opinions about e.g. vaccines.
- lelanthran 1y ago> Government run did not always mean majority ruled. Right. > Many times rights of the minority have been ruled to be important, as in cases like abortion. Correct, but it was with the agreement of the majority of voters! IOW, the majority opinion still prevailed. We are not talking about tyranny of the minority by the majority; your example is literally the majority agreeing that those specific minorities rights be granted to them. TBH, the opposition that we are seeing is opposition to medical intervention on minors who by definition alone cannot give informed consent. Stop fighting that battle and I guarantee that this entire "issue" turns into a nothing-burger. There is no reason to argue for medical interventions on someone who is unable to consent.
- LexiMax 1y ago> transgender treatments The grandparent post didn't say "transgender treatments" they said "transgender issues." Do you believe that the mere concept of questioning your gender identity or expression is something that should be kept from the minds of minors?
- xethos 1y agoThis isn't an "I believe..." / "Do you believe..." kind of issue though. This is "Will the American State and Federal government impose an increasingly stringent moral compass on the wider internet, over time" Which... the VISA-Mastercard duopoly, backed by American soft power and with an American moral compass, already rather proves that point for anyone that's ever tried to pay for erotica outside the mainstream
- LexiMax 1y ago> This isn't an "I believe..." / "Do you believe..." kind of issue though. I asked because I wanted to get a sense on if he conflating the two by accident, or if it was an attempt to steer the conversation away from free speech concerns.
- frumplestlatz 1y agoLet’s be clear about what you mean when you say “outside the mainstream”, because that innocuous turn of phrase is doing a lot of work to cover what you’re really saying. Visa and MasterCard disallow content depicting CSA, rape, incest, bestiality, necrophilia, scatological erotica, torture, extreme sexual violence, and revenge porn.
- xethos 1y agoEquivocating child sexual abuse with the dude drawing consentual fan-fic or furry porn feels disingenuous at best, and more like bad faith though. Because you're not wrong, the mainstream is fairly narrow, but to say the credit card duopoly excludes only the most heinous and vile imagery that can only barely be covered under "artistic expression" isn't exactly an entirely accurate depiction of reality.
- yew 1y ago[flagged]
- bobbruno 1y ago> society as a whole is in agreement that minors are better off without access to pornography Once a significant part of said society can't (or won't) differentiate sexual education and intimacy from pornography, I don't think your statement holds true anymore.
- tayo42 1y agoWhat content are you thinking of that is banned for under 18? Idk if I can think of anything besides porn.
- 627467 1y agoI take you never been to alcohol/tobacco websites
- duskwuff 1y agoI don't think I've ever seen one with an age gate stricter than "please enter your date of birth".
- DangitBobby 1y agoR rated movies for one.
- duskwuff 1y agoAbsolutely not "banned". Movie theaters customarily won't let children under 17 into R-rated films without a parent, but there's no law that I'm aware of enforcing that - it's purely an industry custom. And there's certainly no analogous restriction when purchasing an R-rated DVD, or watching one on a streaming service.
- DangitBobby 1y agoOh wild. Learn something new every day. I worked at a movie theater myself and totally thought it was a law that people under 18 had to be accompanied by a guardian by law.
- jasonfarnon 1y agoThe very reason this isn't legally enforced is because industry self-regulated this way (to avoid legislation that would come with actual liability). If the Internet made any effort at self-regulation beyond "say, you're over 18, right?" perhaps we wouldn't be in this situation.
- rocqua 1y agoThose bans are leaky, and physical. They aren't censorship, and (almost?) Exclusively ban services or sale of goods to underage people. They are also costly to implement, and require a lot of state effort to enforce. These digital checks, if done "right". Are cheap to implement, and hard to get around. They don't easily let adults allow a kid to do it anyway. And a government can trivially check if a whole swath of businesses is implementating it. That last point makes it very easy for governments to use this for widespread ideological interventions. With very little option for others to push back, because few people are involved in enforcement.
- eqvinox 1y ago> we ban all kinds of things for under 18s based on morals. […] a society decide […] Which society though? It used to be that political decisionmaking understood and accepted the existence of people not like the voting majority, and work to a common consensus… that's rather eroded now, and not just in the USA. > Obviously, there should be limits. Obviously? The only thing I'd accept as "obvious" in terms of speech limits is that which is actively violating people, e.g. CSAM, revenge porn and doxxing. Raunchy stories? Porn with consenting participants? Fictional horror & gore? Those are not "obvious" limits… …and then consider nude selfies exchanged consensually between 15yo teens. Is that CSAM?
- sophrosyne42 1y agoA society doesn't decide and can't decide, society is an abstraction. People have different morals, and they decide. The only thing that "putting it in the hands of society" is to put it in the hands of a small group of people who will force others to comply.