55 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

That's a bit much. Pre-adolescents have no real understanding yet of gender and sexuality.

Adolescence is usually a period of self exploration. Few people here can say they're the same person at 40 they were at 15.

I fail to see how any child, or parent, can know with any degree of certainty that a pre-adolescent is trans.

Let kids be kids.

1 hour ago, toolg said:

Let kids be kids.

Ok. Yeah that's pretty much what I'm saying.

In this case it's not about "letting kids transition". Let them grow up a bit before we worry about gender identity and hormone therapy.

I'm not anti-trans. I just think how a kid feels about themselves when they're kids shouldn't mean putting them on a path that's difficult and sometimes impossible to walk back from.

2 hours ago, DEagle7 said:

They can understand well beyond that though. Again my 4 year old has non binary and trans people on his life and he can verbalize the concept of "so-and-so doesn't feel like a boy or girl" and "so-and-so looks like a boy but feels like a girl". I've asked him what he feels like and he says emphatically "I'm a boy!".

It's not like if he said anything different I'd immediately jump to pumping him full of hormones. But to say they don't get it until they're adolescents or adults isn't really the case in my experience.

Let them dress how they want, play with whatever toys they want, etc. If they have a phenus and want to sit down to pee go for it. Messing with hormones is an entirely different thing. Let them get thru puberty before that stuff is put into the mix. At that point, support them completely and if they want to transition then fine.

12 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Let them dress how they want, play with whatever toys they want, etc. If they have a phenus and want to sit down to pee go for it. Messing with hormones is an entirely different thing. Let them get thru puberty before that stuff is put into the mix. At that point, support them completely and if they want to transition then fine.

Ideally, sure. However statistically puberty is the highest risk time of suicide in trans kids as their body changes into a form they don't identify with or want. Again, statistically access to GnRH antagonists dramatically reduce the lifetime risk of suicide in trans people. They're also reversible.

I agree I would much prefer my kid to be happy in the body in which they were born, or were ok going through puberty normally before "transitioning" (whatever that means to them). But also at the end of the day I'm going to do whatever it takes to keep him alive and happy.

11 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

Ideally, sure. However statistically puberty is the highest risk time of suicide in trans kids as their body changes into a form they don't identify with or want. Again, statistically access to GnRH antagonists dramatically reduce the lifetime risk of suicide in trans people. They're also reversible.

I agree I would much prefer my kid to be happy in the body in which they were born, or were ok going through puberty normally before "transitioning" (whatever that means to them). But also at the end of the day I'm going to do whatever it takes to keep him alive and happy.

I get that puberty is the risky zone so at minimum create some tough regulation (doctors to create the conditions) to regulate the use of antagonists and wait with their use until the child hits the time period just before puberty.

8 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

I get that puberty is the risky zone so at minimum create some tough regulation (doctors to create the conditions) to regulate the use of antagonists and wait with their use until the child hits the time period just before puberty.

Doctors and their governing bodies have created use guidelines though. The major trans medicine groups have very clear guidelines and extensive counseling resources. There's even been lawsuits over doctors not practicing within those accepted guidelines recently. What you're advocating for here already existed. People just don't like what they say

8 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

Doctors and their governing bodies have created use guidelines though. The major trans medicine groups have very clear guidelines and extensive counseling resources. There's even been lawsuits over doctors not practicing within those accepted guidelines recently. What you're advocating for here already existed. People just don't like what they say

Are those guidelines codified? Was there a proper set of discussions/debates to allow doctors for and against to state their cases? I'm open to learning this is more officially regulated than I have previously thought.

35 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Are those guidelines codified? Was there a proper set of discussions/debates to allow doctors for and against to state their cases? I'm open to learning this is more officially regulated than I have previously thought.

They're set by various medical organizations with elected boards/committees. WPATH is the big international one but the AMA, AAP, APA, and Endocrine Society all have guidelines in place for transitioning (some more medical based, some psychiatric/psychological based depending on the group).

8 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

They're set by various medical organizations with elected boards/committees. WPATH is the big international one but the AMA, AAP, APA, and Endocrine Society all have guidelines in place for transitioning (some more medical based, some psychiatric/psychological based depending on the group).

At minimum, there is disagreement between international medical communities. In Sweden the regulations were changed in 2022 thru the reasoning that the use of these blockers causes more harm than good. The use of them on minors has been severely restricted ever since. Prior to that, Sweden had been using the blockers pretty widely since 2000 and they were "broadly recommended" in 2015.

Far as I can tell, this topic is still in quite early days and thus is still in a good bit of flux. To that end, imho, caution should be the rule of thumb. To be fair, I know next to nothing about the procedures and guidelines that are in place in the US so perhaps they are already inline with what I would expect and support (not that it matters at all what I think).

2 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

At minimum, there is disagreement between international medical communities. In Sweden the regulations were changed in 2022 thru the reasoning that the use of these blockers causes more harm than good. The use of them on minors has been severely restricted ever since. Prior to that, Sweden had been using the blockers pretty widely since 2000 and they were "broadly recommended" in 2015.

Far as I can tell, this topic is still in quite early days and thus is still in a good bit of flux. To that end, imho, caution should be the rule of thumb. To be fair, I know next to nothing about the procedures and guidelines that are in place in the US so perhaps they are already inline with what I would expect and support (not that it matters at all what I think).

Sounds like Sweden is the one practicing against standard medical recommendations then, because the risks vs benefits analysis of GnRH antagonists in the trans community is very robust and pretty clear. The drop in suicidality in particular is pretty stark and many of the groups I mentioned are international.

Let me put it this way: the rate of suicide attempts in trans kids before the age of 18 with no access to trans medical care and without parental support is around 40%. It's pretty bleak.

13 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

not that it matters at all what I think

Now we're making progress, finally

Just now, DEagle7 said:

Sounds like Sweden is the one practicing against standard medical recommendations then, because the risks vs benefits analysis of GnRH antagonists in the trans community is very robust and pretty clear. The drop in suicidality in particular is pretty stark and many of the groups I mentioned are international.

Let me put it this way: the rate of suicide attempts in trans kids before the age of 18 with no access to trans medical care and without parental support is around 40%. It's pretty bleak.

I highly doubt the Swedish decision is made without the review of existing data. In fact, I'm very sure it is exactly the opposite. What I would imagine is that there are conflicting studies/conclusions which would be completely inline with this topic being rather new in terms of proper scientific data, analysis, and review.

edit: I did a quick session with ChatGPT and as I suspected the positions internationally are not aligned. ChatGPT says "yes, there are studies that support the usage and several medical groups that support their usage", just as you say. ChatGPT also says that many countries and experts conclude that the current data available is "low-certainty, based on experts' opinions rather than long term data, overstate benefits, and overstate the reversibility". Many countries in Europe follow a version of this assessment. Also, the latest move was by New Zealand in late 2025 to discontinue using the blockers due to "insufficient high-quality evidence".

Just now, DrPhilly said:

I highly doubt the Swedish decision is made without the review of existing data. In fact, I'm very sure it is exactly the opposite. What I would imagine is that there are conflicting studies/conclusions which would be completely inline with this topic being rather new in terms of proper scientific data, analysis, and review.

edit: I did a quick session with ChatGPT and as I suspected the positions internationally are not aligned. ChatGPT says "yes, there are studies that support the usage and several medical groups that support their usage", just as you say. ChatGPT also says that many countries and experts conclude that the current data available is "low-certainty, based on experts rather than long term data, overstate benefits, and overstate the reversibility". Many countries in Europe follow a version of this assessment. Also, the latest move was by New Zealand in late 2025 to discontinue using the blockers due to "insufficient high-quality evidence".

Now you're arguing government regulations, not medical society guidelines. Of course there are dissenting opinions and small studies, but the best, most robust currently available studies we have support their use. That's not really up for debate. It's the same "we don't have long term data" excuse saying we can't trust the short term benefits that are easily demonstrated because as adults there may be risks. One, it's impossible to get robust studies on such a small group when your treatment arm is illegal, 2 this excuse goes out the window IMO (and in the opinion of the vast majority of medical groups) when you realize these drugs have been used in the exact same aged population for like 30+ years for precocious puberty.

11 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

I did a quick session with ChatGPT

Just now, DEagle7 said:

Now you're arguing government regulations, not medical society guidelines. Of course there are dissenting opinions and small studies, but the best, most robust currently available studies we have support their use. That's not really up for debate. It's the same "we don't have long term data" excuse saying we can't trust the short term benefits that are easily demonstrated because as adults there may be risks. One, it's impossible to get robust studies on such a small group when your treatment arm is illegal, 2 this excuse goes out the window IMO (and in the opinion of the vast majority of medical groups) when you realize these drugs have been used in the exact same aged population for like 30+ years for precocious puberty.

No, I'm putting everything together. The EU countries and NZ use all of their medical experts in making policy. The conclusions aren't being made by politicians. Those experts and doctors are looking at the same studies that the US medical groups are looking at and reaching different conclusions. Again, that seems quite logical given the nature of the question and the limited amount of data we have.

Just now, DrPhilly said:

No, I'm putting everything together. The EU countries and NZ use all of their medical experts in making policy. The conclusions aren't being made by politicians. Those experts and doctors are looking at the same studies that the US medical groups are looking at and reaching different conclusions. Again, that seems quite logical given the nature of the question and the amount of data we have.

And you believe that those regulations are medically based without any consideration for the political popularity or personal moral compass of the government officials involved?

I'll put it this way, the CDC recently dramatically changed their recommendations for the MMR, Hep B and HPV vaccines in kids. Medical professionals were used in that decision. The AAP and AMA are still recommending the original vaccine schedule. Which do you trust more? Because the independent international endocrine, psychiatric and adolescent medical societies are largely unified here.

1 minute ago, DEagle7 said:

And you believe that those regulations are medically based without any consideration for the political popularity or personal moral compass of the government officials involved?

Absolutely. There isn't a significant political issue on the topic in Sweden or NZ. In addition, both have national medical boards (not appointed by politicians) who set these national guidelines/policies.

You can take a look at how Sweden handled COVID as an example of how this type of thing works in Sweden. The entire topic was handled by the national medical leader and he was NOT politically appointed unlike the JFK crap in the US where Trump could simply change long term policy thru a nomination. He was able to run the emergency pandemic playbook put together by the experts over decades before the crisis. You can agree or disagree with how he ran it but it was with near zero interference from the politicians.

1 minute ago, DrPhilly said:

Absolutely. There isn't a significant political issue on the topic in Sweden or NZ. In addition, both have national medical boards (not appointed by politicians) who set these national guidelines/policies.

You can take a look at how Sweden handled COVID as an example of how this type of thing works in Sweden. The entire topic was handled by the national medical leader and he was NOT politically appointed unlike the JFK crap in the US where Trump could simply change long term policy thru a nomination.

Yeah that's incredibly naive man I don't know what to tell you. But really the Swedish national policy vs the American national policy vs any national policy isn't the issue here. What does the existing data show? The data on GnRH agonists may not be perfect but the existing data very much points in significant benefits. And the policies of Independent International societies reflect that.

Just now, DEagle7 said:

Yeah that's incredibly naive man I don't know what to tell you. But really the Swedish national policy vs the American national policy vs any national policy isn't the issue here. What does the existing data show? The data on GnRH agonists may not be perfect but the existing data very much points in significant benefits. And the policies of Independent International societies reflect that.

Ok, whatever dude. If you want to say EVERYTHING is affected by general opinion then yeah, sure. What I can say is that this topic simply doesn't come up normally in Sweden. Not in the mainstream media and not as a general message by any of the political parties.

I dug in a bit more and the 2022 decision in Sweden to severely restrict the blockers usage in minors was 100% a medical decision reflecting "medical and scientific caution based off of the available evidence". It is an official national policy/guideline but not codified in law by politicians. Maybe it was a bad decision but it is the formal medical decision and not one pushed by politicians.

What I see is different groups of credible medical experts reaching different conclusions on policy guidelines and doing that based on the same data. I have no idea which of the experts are right and which are wrong but you do seem to know and of course you have some real expertise so there is that. I'll stick with my non expert layman view until things reach more of a consensus overall.

Please have the final say.

On 2/28/2026 at 1:15 PM, DEagle7 said:

Let me put it this way: the rate of suicide attempts in trans kids before the age of 18 with no access to trans medical care and without parental support is around 40%. It's pretty bleak.

Purely based on intuition, I feel like "parental support" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here.

1 hour ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Purely based on intuition, I feel like "parental support" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here.

Currently the best available evidence shows that access to GnRH agonists in isolation reduces the rate of suicide attempts before 18 by like 70+%. Which is why we really shouldn't be using intuition on such a emotional/charged subject.

2 hours ago, DEagle7 said:

Currently the best available evidence shows that access to GnRH agonists in isolation reduces the rate of suicide attempts before 18 by like 70+%. Which is why we really shouldn't be using intuition on such a emotional/charged subject.

I am, ultimately, a data driven person.

I've had three kids, we're not strangers to therapy and ADHD meds and the like. Pre-adolescence feels like a no go for me. Things change so much and meds are a crutch for things kids need to learn how to deal with, for the most part.

During puberty these feelings of gender dysphoria certainly will heighten. Show me the studies.

6 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

I am, ultimately, a data driven person.

I've had three kids, we're not strangers to therapy and ADHD meds and the like. Pre-adolescence feels like a no go for me. Things change so much and meds are a crutch for things kids need to learn how to deal with, for the most part.

During puberty these feelings of gender dysphoria certainly will heighten. Show me the studies.

I did about 30 mins of research today. There are several observational and self report studies that show high rates of improvement with depression (which naturally led to lower attempted suicides). That's the positive and the studies DEagle7 is pointing toward if I've understood correctly.

I could not find any RCT type studies and the observational studies were met with lots of criticism on several points and from different places (US, UK, New Zealand, Sweden). The arguments against are centered on the studies being too small, not long enough, don't control for other factors, etc. There are also potential negative effects on bone development and psychosocial behavior.

Note: There is also a lot of political interference in the UK and the US on the topic. The New Zealand policies to ban new treatment, etc. are challenged in court.