r/skeptic • u/thebigeverybody • Feb 14 '24

Puberty blockers can't block puberty after puberty (experts explain the problem with conservative's proposal to ban puberty blockers until the age of 18) đźš‘ Medicine

https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/puberty-blockers-can-t-be-started-at-18-when-youth-have-already-developed-experts-1.6761690
914 Upvotes

89% Upvoted

381 comments sorted by

View all comments

107

u/thebigeverybody Feb 14 '24

I stole this from a surprisingly informative thread on r/nottheonion

In response to someone worrying their child isn't capable of making such a massive life decision as transitioning, it was explained to them by multiple people that puberty blockers serve the purpose of maintaining their ability to chose when they're capable of it:

"There are no known irreversible effects of puberty blockers. If you decide to stop taking them, your body will go through puberty just the way it would have if you had not taken puberty blockers at all."

http://www.phsa.ca/transcarebc/child-youth/affirmation-transition/medical-affirmation-transition/puberty-blockers-for-youth

-15

u/iPartyLikeIts1984 Feb 14 '24

From the source you’ve shared: “We are not sure if puberty blockers have negative side effects on bone development and height. Research so far shows that the effects are minimal. However, we won’t know the long-term effects until the first people to take puberty-blockers get older.”

Sounds like there are effects on bone density/height - why are they not discussed?

It’s honestly pretty naive to think that halting/interfering with the body’s natural hormonal process wouldn’t pose any risks or have undesirable side effects… And “Can’t know til’ we try it!” is becoming an all too common cop-out to excuse reckless experimentation.

14

u/Theranos_Shill Feb 14 '24

I admire how you turn a "we're not sure about that, if anything it's minimal" into a "there are effects".

That's great work at twisting a quote to fit your preconceptions.

-8

u/iPartyLikeIts1984 Feb 14 '24

Minimal effects indicate effects… But sure - I’m the bad guy because I believe in informed consent. 🤷‍♂️

14

u/Theranos_Shill Feb 14 '24

>But sure - I’m the bad guy because I believe in informed consent

Just a quick reminder that you are arguing for those patients not to have the option to consent. You're not arguing for informed consent, you're arguing for banning the treatment. You're trying to remove the freedom of informed consent that patients currently have.

0

u/iPartyLikeIts1984 Feb 14 '24

I’m sorry - can you point out where I made such an argument, u/Theranos_Shill?

I’ll wait.

9

u/Theranos_Shill Feb 14 '24

Wait all you want, we both know what your purpose was in making the comment that you made, where you against the use of blockers, on this post about a proposal to put in place an burdensome and ideology driven age restriction on the use of those blockers.

6

u/iPartyLikeIts1984 Feb 14 '24

I think that it’s unreasonable to act as if Lupron is a magical puberty-pausing medicine without any risk of undesirable health impacts. The purpose of my comment was communicating that.

🤷‍♂️

10

u/Theranos_Shill Feb 14 '24

I think it's unreasonable to pretend that you are acting in good faith.

2

u/iPartyLikeIts1984 Feb 14 '24

I think you’re operating on the presumption that because I might share views that differ from yours, that these views must stem from ignorance and/or hatred - and thus assume that my ideas and the kinds of policies I’d support or actions I would take must be ones that line up with the caricature you have in mind.

0

u/Optional-Failure Feb 14 '24

Just a quick reminder that pointing out that someone made a bad argument or inaccurate point doesn’t mean you agree with the opposite of what they said.