>


Sure, but what is the same is that some get it during childhood, some can regret it, and there are perceived benefits. I’m speaking to OPs idea that some will regret it. 

I just want to give you kudos on dealing with what is, to me, the most annoying, derailing debate tactic:

"Concept A has a few structural similarities to Concept B. While Concepts A and B don't share the same impact or severity, lets see how one Concept may lead to insights into the other."
"Did you really just compare Concept A with Concept B?!? Unbelievable." ect ect

Just drives me up a wall.
Hi /u/sg4o7vkqj1, you're not in trouble, we're temporarily locking your post.

This post has been temporarily locked due to excessive comment rule violations.  The OP has not necessarily broken any of our posting rules.
Sometimes, if a post gets cross-posted in another sub, this can lead to an influx of rule breaking comments.  We are a small team of moderators, so this can easily overwhelm our ability to remove rule violations.  When this occurs, we must occasionally temporarily lock the post so we can remove the violations before discussion can be restored. This may or may not be what has happened here. 
We are actively cleaning up the thread now, and will unlock it shortly.  We will try and do this quickly so discussion can continue though the amount of time will vary based on moderator availability.
Thank you for understanding. >

The cases don't look at longitudinal studies. Why don't these studies exist? 
If you asked a girl who got a tramp stamp a few days after she'd be happy. If you asked her 10 years later, is it possible her opinion would change? >

Like the conclusion of what you sent is focused on around how to properly word questions as to actually correctly count transgender and non-binary people and not conflate them in the data
​

While trying to include gender identity on survey data, researchers have experimented with different questions, varying the number and the wording of the questions and responses. Even among recent wide population estimates, as shown in Table 2, the most common single-question method was to include a third (or more) option for gender, most often “transgender.” This method is unreliable, however, failing to identify transgender survey participants at rates higher than missing responses (Tate et al., 2013, p. 771). Depending on the question wording, the single-question method also systematically undercounted certain types of trans people, namely those who do not identify with the term “transgender” or any other listed terms.

​

Less-specific language for gender identity also better handles often-rapid terminological changes for trans identities, especially salient in longitudinal studies that will ask for participants’ gender repeatedly. These changes occur at both the individual and community levels and are a challenge to longitudinal studies. For example, many trans people moved away from “transsexual,” which was seen as too narrowly focused on medicalization and maintaining the dominant gender binary. “Transgendered” became a common umbrella term in the early 1990s (at the same time the HRS began), largely replacing “transsexual” (Stryker, 2008). That term has now fallen out of favor to the point that many consider it offensive, because it wrongly implies that gender identity is something done to a person, rather than an identity that is partly the result of their own agency. The preferred term is now “transgender” (GLAAD, 2016, pp. 10–14; Lopez, 2015; cf. Park, 2011). Importantly for the purposes of longitudinal surveys, these are not merely different terms applied to the same population. Rather, terms like “transsexual,” “transgendered,” and “transgender” are the products of different groups to create identities for themselves, and so include different populations. As these definitions change, different individuals may come to identify or disidentify with a given term (Beemyn & Rankin, 2011; Meier & Labuski, 2013; Stryker, 2008), regardless of whether they meet the criterion for being transgender commonly given. >

Question do you think there is transgender people who regret not transitioning earlier? I bet there is more of them then your potential group. Utah ban is stopping HRT which is the bigger talk point >

This is valid. I know quite a few trans folks. Those i know quite well, enough to talk their transition, tell me the one regret is they didn't do it earlier.  But for many that was not possible. Many of the issues trans folks experience post transition could be eliminated by transitioning earlier. Like voice, facial hair, height, menstruation and so on. >

You can legally get plastic surgery when you're under 18 in plenty of US states. It just requires parental consent. Why is it that a 16-year-old cis girl with supportive parents could get a boob job done, but a 16-year-old trans girl with supportive parents can't? Both of them are gender-affirming surgeries. You can't allow one and not the other without being a massive hypocrite. >

Even worse, because SRS isn't cosmetic, it's medical. >


The argument I most often hear is that banning the surgery for our younger trans folk may snowball into banning surgeries for trans people who are older and can absolutely make decisions about their lives.

Isn't this the slippery slope fallacy? >

Your phrasing is that of a slippery slope, albeit much less extreme (and therefore harder to detect) than the "pEoPle WiLl MaRry dOgs" nonsense that's been peddled.
However, I hadn't heard of Missouri exploring that option, so while slippery, your view is rooted in reality. Although "bans to adult transgender people" is willfully ignoring the fact that it's only up to age 25 based on our understanding of brain development. I would support said legislation if all other "adult activities" were allowed only after 25  (e.x. joining the military, driving, voting, drinking, etc.) As it stands, a law like that is either wildly hypocritical or very targeted. Probably both.
That's all to say that I think your concern, while phrased as a fallacy, is sound. Δ
I'm not sure if I can give Delta's but thought I'd try 😀 >

I totally agree. 18 is pretty arbitrary but that's what we've agreed to as a society (for whatever reason). Imposing a higher age limit on any one thing is wrong. Either you're an adult with full rights or a child with restricted rights. >

Agreed! Even raising the drinking or smoking ages to 21 when you can still join the army at 18 seems remarkably wrong, in my opinion. Personally, I think 20 should be the age for things, but that's just as arbitrary as anything else. As long as it's all the same, that's what really matters to me. >

18 isn't arbitrary, it's when most US highschoolers have graduated. So it's more that they see you as an adult after you've reached an age where you are most likely no longer in highschool. And I can actually agree with that, I see a huge difference between highschool kids and college kids/working adults. >

For some reason highschool hadn't occurred to me lol. Thank you for pointing that out! I don't see as much difference between high schoolers and college kids, but you are right that 18 isn't as arbitrary as I thought.
!delta >

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/massagesncoffee (1∆).
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

I had to be put on a waitlist for a clinic just for hormone blockers and eventually hormones at 14, after being in therapy for years with 2 queer therapists. At that clinic i would see multiple nurses, a doctor, a psychiatrist, and a social worker.
i had top surgery at 15 and my version of bottom surgery at 17. throughout this entire time i was already very unstable but had i not received the treatment i did, even with all of the drawbacks, i wouldnt be alive today. My trans support groups also made it very clear my transition was Mine Alone. It doesn't need to look like anyone elses and there isn't a right way to transition. you can pick and choose what you want. 
I do not see anyone taking the time to be peer pressured into that. Take into consideration many families already place restrictions on hormones and make their kids wait until they're 18. This ban would just take away resources from people with primarily supportive families.
in the time it takes, usually doctors are able to spot a child influenced by breaking gender roles and traditions and someone who would like to explore that but is otherwise comfortable in their body (someone who will likely not want to medically transition)
vs
a child who is distressed by puberty causing secondary sex characteristics (or lack of) or someone who is having thoughts of harm towards areas of their body they have dysphoria over
(someone who will probably want to medically transition)
EDIT: While I disagree about children transitioning due to peer pressure, there have been a few cases of abuse of parents forcing their kids to transition and buying off or conning doctors. I fear this will be what is more common. >


EDIT: While I disagree about children transitioning due to peer pressure, there have been a few cases of abuse of parents forcing their kids to transition and buying off or conning doctors. I fear this will be what is more common.

Child abuse is obviously aweful, but it's a bit silly to fallback on these cases to justify blanket bans I believe. Like, yeah, obviously, if some deranged folks have enough time and money they can do aweful things. >

Right, cause this isn't the go-to method of abuse for abusive parents (if it's even true this has ever happened). By this logic you'd also ban children from living with their parents because abuse usually takes place in the home.
You deal with this with a highly regulated professional body and strong checks and balances in all healthcare. >

It's ironic too, because Republicans are also quick to legislate such that non-parents cannot discuss these types of topics with children at all (or without notifying the parents), which would make this type of abuse (assuming it exists) much easier. 
I don't know, it sounds like parents ought to be the final authority when it suits them, but also need to be state controlled when convenient. >

Great point. 
Republicans: how dare you delete my bigoted comment from a reddit page because freedom of speech
Also republicans: It's illegal to tell children gay people exist.
(idk republicans well, but this checks out with the conservatives in Australia) >

Not directly a main rebuttal to your point but as a cis hetero dude I was convinced to stop worrying about this trans surgery thing when someone pointed out that more people regret getting hip or knee surgery, wisdom teeth removed, boobjobs or other cosmetic surgery,  than regret doing transitions/gender related surgery.
Detransition is a marginally small amount of trans people ~~like 1% of the trans population which is in itself like 1-2%, so you are talking about literally less than 500 people in the entire United States~~ Actually trans percentage is 0.6% of people in the US. Out of those about 1 in 4 does surgery. Out of those 1% regret it as per this study. with 300.000.000 population this gives us 4500 people which is more than I first said but still a marginally small fraction of the population.
Gender reassignment surgery is 18+ or 16+ in most western countries, you can argue about the details for the minimum age but in general listen to the people that are actually impacted by this. Fact is that you can get literally a lot of surgeries (like a boob job) without ANY minimum age with your parent's permission and no one cares (at least where I live this is the case and has never been a political issue). I know someone who got a botched boobjob at 16 that she regrets but thats life, I wouldn't change laws over such an edge case and neither would she.
Sorry to be so frank here and I'm not trying to say you are bigoted for making this argument (you probably mean well and are just concerned) but at this point I am convinced that this entire trans debate just exists to be a point of contention.
Yes being trans/nb is kind of an edgy thing in some youth culture circles right now (I know teens that have lived as NB for a while just to try themselves out, it's a thing especially for people born female) but the hoops you have to go through to actually get a transition and reassignment (from the paperwork to the counceling to the cost and pain of the operation and month-long aftercare) is not something one does for fun and you would have to think that "non-trans" teens doing this as a style thing are both extremely dumb and extremely masochistic.
Edit: changed wrong math but the point still stands. >


the trans population which is in itself like 1-2%,

Just want to add an addendum that the trans population is only about 0.6% of the US population. >

I've seen higher rates for younger people as it gets more socially normalized but i just put a rough range cause frankly I didn't really bother looking it up. >

It's like 0.5% for adults and 1.5% for youth, and 0.6% total. >


Children are very easily peer pressured into doing what is trendy and will make them look cooler or more interesting to their friends.

Their doctors are not. You won't find doctors who will perform surgery on minors because the minor followed a trend and thought that's the cool thing now. This isn't a thing that happens, there's a natural check against the impulses of the children here. >


This isn't a thing that happens, there's a natural check against the impulses of the children here.

I'm a physician and I hate to tell you that this isn't absolutely true. I would say it's generally true, but it only takes one doctor who is motivated by money to create a "tragedy of the commons."
I'll give an example. When I was in medical school, bariatric surgery was just becoming popular in that area. The one surgeon in my area who was truly an expert in performing it was very responsible about it. He was academic. He had patients first attend counseling to identify and address the root causes of their overeating. He had them join weightwatchers. He would not perform the surgery until they lost a certain percentage of their body weight through diet and exercise. He knew that if he just performed the surgery without any preliminary support, it would not help the patient. And he had sworn an oath to "first, do no harm." 
Guess what happened? He had a tremendous success rate, but every stopped going to him within a few years when billboards went up advertising the services of a guy who'd do the surgery instantly without any of these measures for a flat cash price. That guy did several cases per day and made boatloads of money. He didn't care of patients ate through their bypass and ended up with major GI issues and malnutrition, etc. 
So although it's generally true that doctors won't perform unnecessary surgeries, it only takes one to enter a market with unethical motives and grab all the business of those who are seeking to follow a trend. Remember that like bariatric surgery, a lot of these procedures are cash-only. That means a doctor gets to name their price. It's a dangerous conflict of interest. Honestly I'd be surprised if this isn't already happening in multiple major metropolitan markets in the realm of transgender.
As another example look at lobotomy in the past century. The developer won the Nobel Prize. It was used widely, and it caused tremendous pain when people realized the harm it caused. >

You're right, but what does that mean to the discussion at hand?  The existence of unscrupulous doctors is certainly something we need to watch out for, but what bearing does that have on the rest of doctors who ARE performing their due diligence?  It's a good argument in favor of increased oversight, but when we're having a conversation over whether gender-affirming surgery is valid at all, it seems like a bit of a strawman to bring up the cases where the generally accepted procedure is not being followed.
It's like if we were discussing the safety of a particular model of car.  The manufacturer says that this vehicle provides outstanding safety characteristics and that the vast majority of crashes result in only minor injuries.  "But," you say, "what if you drove it off of a 100-foot cliff?  I hate to tell you but not all crashes result in only minor injuries."  You're not wrong... you're just bringing up a situation that is not relevant to the discussion at hand.  
Just about ALL medical procedures are dangerous when applied indiscriminately by unscrupulous doctors.  This is not something that is unique to transgender care and it's not a valid argument against transgender care.  The poster above you was speaking in absolutes when, as you pointed out, there are absolutely outliers.  Don't get me wrong, I 100% agree with your post - I just see this type of logic often used as a strawman to discredit gender-affirming care in general (including several places in this very post) and in that context, bringing up physician malfeasance is a total strawman. >


what bearing does that have on the rest of doctors who ARE performing their due diligence?

One bad actor influences the behavior of others and creates a pressure remove safeguards. It's not a strawman in my experience, because I've seen it happen in other arenas. Oversight is not enough to safeguard when the harm is potentially irreparable. 

You're not wrong... you're just bringing up a situation that is not relevant to the discussion at hand.

Suppose you're a surgeon performing these procedures totally responsibly, following all the guidelines and standards and staying on top of the evidence as it develops. You're screening your patients to weed out those who are more likely to have regrets later. You've got a steady flow of patients and you're pleased with your outcomes. Suddenly people stop coming to your clinic. They're going across the street to the dude who advertises heavily and cuts early and often and only takes cash. The hospital comes and says if you don't perform at least a certain number of cases per month they have to give the OR time to someone else. What do you do? Just close up shop? Or do you justify surgery a little more often, at the expense of some safeguards?
What I'm saying is that I've seen several examples in my time in medicine where one bad actor creates a race to the bottom. It happens. It's a function of human nature and market dynamics. It's probably inevitable.
So, if you want to really protect minors from having permanent damage to their bodies and a lifetime of regrets, Utah's law is a good thing. But it might come at the cost of delaying others from getting a surgery they really genuinely do want.
Your car crash analogy doesn't speak to what I'm suggesting. Perhaps a better analogy would be if one carmaker is able to sell more cars by cutting safety measures and therefore offering a cheaper price. Unless checked by the oversight entity, other carmakers would have to lose business or follow suit. >

Question.
What do you think about the fact that at one point, a Utah state representative suggested amending the bill to include a ban on breast enlargements for cisgender minors, but was then voted down? If you want to protect minors against unnecessary surgeries, surely you're outraged by the decision to only ban gender-affirming surgeries for trans youth? >


at one point, a Utah state representative suggested amending the bill to include a ban on breast enlargements for cisgender minors

I'd support that ban >

Curious how that's always the response.
"Sure, I don't think cis girls should get cosmetic procedures either! I don't support circumcision! I don't support intersex babies with ambiguous genitalia being forced to undergo unnecessary alterations to their bodies to appear perfectly male or perfectly female!"
Yet they never mobilize for anything but bans on gender affirming care on trans people. NEVER. >


Yet they never mobilize for anything but bans on gender affirming care on trans people. NEVER.

​
Who is "they" here? Also I think one point of this ban is to protect people from opting for a permanent solution while they are still developing, in order to prevent permanent harm. There is a lot of care that is not banned in this bill. The issue is more complex than just one factor, and there is no single action that would satisfy everyone's needs.
​

"Sure, I don't think cis girls should get cosmetic procedures either! I don't support circumcision! I don't support intersex babies with ambiguous genitalia being forced to undergo unnecessary alterations to their bodies to appear perfectly male or perfectly female!"

​
Is this an actual quote? >


permanent solution while they are still developing, in order to prevent permanent harm

Puberty blockers aren't permanent, yet they're not only banned here, but they're also not banned for cis youth. 
No, it's not an actual quote, but it is a summary of the positions I've seen people take. They deny supporting IGM... but they never once as much as sign petitions for it, even when asked. They don't care about any mutilation except the one they twisted in their minds to wrongfully define as mutilation. >

I have a trans sibling. They are in their 20s now and have had their surgery. They had to go through a LOT of screening and therapy sessions before the doctors would consider it, and they had to be an adult. I've never heard of a little kid having this done. >

As a society we have decided that children are not capable of big decisions and we have given that responsibility to the parents. I do believe that for certain really important decisions, some maturity is required. maybe there are studies that I'm not aware of that can say what age is the best one for this kind of decision. And I do believe that this is a matter that has to be decided by professionals and not by personal credo or politics >

There's fewer than 8000 minors in the united states using puberty blockers.  Exactly how many kids do you think are getting gender reassignment surgeries in the united states?
This is a conservative talking point they've fabricated out of thin air. only adults are getting gender confirming surgeries. >

Trans children are very rarely given these surgeries, let alone offered them, so this argument is relying on something that doesn't happen. >

Some do, some don't.
Some will say they regret it because they know their family still wants them to be their original gender. But that doesn't mean that they no longer wish they were the other gender. In fact some will live a double life, one as original gender around friends and family and the other when they are alone. >

Good thing they don't get the final say >

(Endocrinologists make the decision) >

Do your LGBTQ friends know about how you feel? >

Clearly a USA issue.  I think most countries may very well give young people puberty blockers but I'm unaware of and permanant gender reassighnment surgeries being performed. Regardless of the social reasoning in your post it's simply a null argument because children dont have transgender surgeries. It's seems to be to be something that the "think of the children" brigade trot out as a means to try to scare the CIS population about the "LGBT+ agenda". >

Do you think someone who wants to transition, regardless of age, just shows up and asks for surgery and gets it? >

Some surely will. That is the nature of surgeries. Hip surgeries have a high rate of regret, higher than transitions, if memory serves.
You shouldn't treat a significant surgery as a fashion trend, absolutely, but that's true of basically all surgeries, and trends absolutely come and go in the medical industry. Folks getting the seventh round of botox so their faces look plastic...might regret that as well.
Perhaps the problem is not specifically a certain type of surgery, but making lifelong decisions based on tiktok in general.
The exact same standards against hastily made significant surgeries like this should probably apply to children in general, whatever your standards are. It need not be specific to transitioning. >

I keep hearing that people are really worried about children getting gender affirming surgery, although I have yet to hear a story about a single child actually getting it done. In the absence of evidence supporting this, I have seen many reports stating the opposite, that no doctors are performing gender affirming surgical procedures, nor would they if they could, on children. The body of a child is simply too far from full development to expect positive results in the long term. Further, doctors know that children are impressionable, they have children of their own or at least they were a child at one point. Knowing that, doctors stop at the point where reversal is still possible by discontinuing therapy, not when it would require a second life altering surgical intervention. I think you would be hard pressed to find a doctor that would risk so much, even if it was just the financial risk of being sued by the child when they get older. >

In some places older children, 16+ can have some forms of surgery done. There was a wonderful teenager in Australia who fought hard for this.
It's life-changing in the sense that it saves lives. There's a documentary on Netflix about her experience. The Dreamlife of Georgie Stone. Its very clear how important it was to her and how mature and capable she was, of being able to choose this herself. I think it's brilliant. >

I don’t even understand why this is a heavily debated topic. I’ve never even heard of doctors that will perform transgender surgeries on minors. Republicans are making this a bigger deal than what it actually is when it doesn’t even happen. I’m sure you could find one or two rare cases out there but this isn’t happening like Fox News says it is. >

Isn't this all cultural war topics?  It's made up fear mongering that turns out to be either outright untrue or so rare it is pointless. >

You really think people are getting surgery as a fad? >

I think that some children may decide they are trans because their friends are too, and after their trans friends come back to school after having gender affirming surgery, they will want it too. I don't think they will think through the consequences... because they are children. Then when they are older, they will regret it. >


I think that some children may decide they are trans because their friends are too, and after their trans friends come back to school after having gender affirming surgery, they will want it too.

This really doesn't happen, like, at all.
Minor-aged children aren't going away on holiday and coming back with a new vagina to show their friends. Minor-aged children who transition are generally doing so socially, with the aid of puberty blockers. >

I wasn't aware of puberty blockers, to be honest. ∆ Thank you >

Honestly, the only surgeries I can think of being performed on minors' gentalia are the """corrective""" surgeries done for those with ambiguous genitalia. But you won't really see the anti-trans crowd at large rally against that, because the idea that there arent two distinct boxes that people fit in is the thing they chafe against. >

That and circumcision/FGM tend to be the only 'elective' genital surgeries commonly performed  on minors >

Also true! >

Wait, there is a lot of conversation here, but nobody seems to be asking the question:
Are they really doing gender assignment surgery on minors? Excluding breast reduction, which is used for much more than gender affirmation, what evidence is there that surgeries are being performed on minors?
There are medications, sure. But your view is regarding surgery. But if surgeries are not performed on minors, except in some potential extreme case, then this discussion only serves to mislead people into believing something that isn’t true. 
My challenge to you is either find data showing the prevalence of surgeries on minors (to the point where “fad” surgeries would even be a concern), or delta me, as I believe your view is based on an inaccuracy.
For context, here is an article that says they found 56 TOTAL gender surgeries on minors. If one makes the stretch to guess that many, if not all, of these are related to hermaphrodidic conditions, it puts the discussion into perspective. >

From what I can tell, these laws do not respond to any kind of meaningful reality and do not attempt to address actual problems. For instance, the Utah legislature banned trans-athlete from competing in highchool in 2021 (I believe) and there was exactly one such athlete at the time. 
As far as I can tell, it's just fear mongering. You pretend like there's a huge problem, you pass legislation, and then the legilsation itself appears like proof of there being a problem. >

/u/sg4o7vkqj1 (OP) has awarded 9 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >


Children are very easily peer pressured into doing what is trendy

Do you have a source that says transgenderism is seen as "trendy"

This is getting even worse with TikTok, with kids destroying bathrooms and stealing cars just because it's the latest cool thing to do.

Wouldn't these children be doing nasty things like this anyway? It's not like it's going to make children that aren't that way inclined turn to this. (Peer pressure might, but tiktok alone doesn't)

I also believe, however, that many children will see being trans as something trendy and cool, and identify as trans primarily to fit in better with their friends.

Do you think that in real life they will fit in? You seem to be basing this in the online world, which really doesn't reflect the every day. Unfortunately irl bullies and bigots exist. Transgender people speak of their struggles with acceptance and the bigoted views of the people around them often. I think you're misrepresenting the experience of trans people.

If they end up getting surgeries, I believe they will likely regret it later and want to change back.

I've recently listened to a trans persons story and she said when she was younger, pre transition, she used puberty blockers in order to give her time to understand herself. I think this is more widely used than going down the surgery route immediately, no? >

You are right, I'm thinking too much about online influences and I know from my own experiences that they rarely translate like I'm portraying. Also this thread is the first time I'm hearing of puberty blockers so I have some reading up to do. Thanks! ∆ >

Sorry, why are you so easy to change your mind? >

Because it was a pretty foolish position to start at.
Growing and changing after learning new information is much more mature and admirable than trying to "win" the argument. >

My daughter is looking to take testosterone and I worry that she is more about not wanting to be female than wanting to be a male. How did you find your answers, did you have counselling? >

So the only people who are allowed to get transition surgery are adults. It is not performed for minors unless there's very special circumstances.  14 year old kid can't walk into a doctor's office and get surgery. This is a made up problem. There are no children getting surgery by choice who "will regret it" later on. >

Fellow utah person here.
A important thing to note about this bill is it does NOT ban cis girls from getting breast implants. These bills do not actually care about children making decisions they may or may not be able to understand the consequences of. These bills are about preventing specifically trans kids from getting the care they need. >

I have the worst tattoo that I got when I was 18.  I regret it every single day when I look in the mirror and it keeps me from enjoying things like swimming where I have to take my shirt off.  I want to smack my 18 year old self for making such a life changing decision at such a young age.  I couldn’t imagine letting someone even younger than that make any life altering changes. >

First of all, children weren't getting surgeries. Children who inisit they're trans would begin the process of social transition and maybe go on puberty blockers at most. No 8 year old is getting surgery. Teenagers might have some form of medical procedure performed, but even then we're not talking about bottom surgery or anything of the sort that's irreversable.
With the way the discussion of trans individuals goes you'd think someone declares they're trans and they get their genitals mutilated inside a week. Adults who are confirmed trans after months of therapy aren't getting surgeries for months or even years. No one is rushing children through a process that stonewalls adults. That's just not the reality.
The bill, and the many like it across the country at the moment, is devastating to trans people for two reasons. First, there are some children who need and would benefit from medical care such as puberty blockers. Which I'd like to note are only blocked for gender care and not for the original purpose they were designed for; precocious puberty, because even the lawmakers know they're perfectly safe they're just cracking down on transgender individuals. Which leads into the second point; there are lawmakers who are actively targeting trans people who clearly know the science (otherwise they wouldn't have left the loophole for precocious puberty and just left it at banning puberty blockers altogether) but are still targeting us anyway. No one believes it ends with this bill. This is the start, and now that they've been successful with this step they're going to see how far they can push it. >

The bill, in its full scope, bans all gender-affirming care for minors. While surgery is the obvious "final step" in the process, that also means it bans hormone replacement and hormone blocking. While I can see people saying "wait for surgery until you're an adult," the lack of hormone blocking through puberty can cause irreversible changes that make future transition much more difficult. On the whole, hormone blocking just delays puberty, giving the individual time to feel sure about their decision before transitioning with hormones and/or surgery. >

Getting any surgery is a pretty major thing yeah? That's a looong way to go for a trend and I think it's rather unlikely that any kid would have enough trans peers to warrent any pressure to fit in >

I wonder what the regret rate for baldness surgery or other cosmetic surgeries is. I think most of them are happy with their decision. If a bald man believes he truly is a person with hair, why would he regret getting hair? >

1: the rate of detransitioners, or people who regret their trans surgeries, is 1%. 99% of trans people have been perfectly happy with their surgeries and gender. why should we restrict the 99% for the 1? the rate of trans suicide is huge, and vastly decreases with surgery. restricting this surgery is a sure way to promote more trans suicide. is that not worse than a few detransitioners? 
and btw I have sources for these if you would like >

Starts off calling someone intolerant. Offers some poorly written blurb about a study in the netherlands? Proceeds to spew transphobic misinformation about mutilation of children. Go to bed Mr.Walsh. >

yeah, double mastectomy of children is mutilation. what would you call it? >

If that's mutilstion, all surgery is mutilation. >

It isn't the government's job to prevent people from having regrets in life. Even if everything you said he were true, the solution to that would be for better education of doctors and psychologists and awareness among parents and teenagers and so on. It wouldn't be for the government to ban the thing >

We don’t let children drink alcohol, we don’t let them do drugs, we don’t let them get tattoos… but they’re allowed to lop off chunks of their bodies? >

Do you think all surgeries should be banned for minors? If you're gonna frame surgery by a doctor after extensive care as "lopping off chunks of their bodies" then what surgeries would be okay? >

Many children may regret having their wisdom teeth removed when they are adults, but how many compared to how many won’t and how helpful the procedure is on the whole also seem like some important things to think about as well, don’t they? >

Having a wisdom tooth pulled out vs making hormonal changes that will physically effect how your body develops permanently are quite different. >

Sure, but what is the same is that some get it during childhood, some can regret it, and there are perceived benefits. I’m speaking to OPs idea that some will regret it. 
If you want to talk about the difference in potential of how much they will regret something, we can talk about diet and work out regimens for children who want to be athletes which can also greatly impact hormones and permanently alter their bodies in ways that again some will grow up to regret, but this seems to be a decision we allow children, in conjunction with their guardians and many times the advice of medical professionals, to make. In fact, my guess would be that there is less coercion in HT for trans children than  the decision for children to be athletes, given the societal benefits for the latter versus the former.