Is there someone better educated on the physiological and psychological science of this that can explain why gender transition at that age is not child abuse?

Because from everything I understand about how complicated and frequently fraught with remorse and confusion that issue is for adults....how in the name of fuck can someone that young be mature enough to make that kind of life changing decision? (or indeed have it made for them)

Gender dysphoria is usually only diagnosed in adulthood and usually requires years of psychotherapy and adoption of the desired gender role before any respectable doctor in the UK would allow the transformative process of hormone therapy to begin. (let alone reassignment surgery)

The suicide rate for transitioned people is about 40% I'm told. This appears to mostly be a combination of depression brought on by using the idea of transition to avoid other underlying emotional problems and/or remorse in later years.

None of this is to say people should not transition. There is plenty of evidence to support many a diagnosis of dysphoria and many a success story. But the thing those happy transitions seem to have in common is a very through and mature understanding of themselves.

i.e. things a child is incapable of doing when their mind and personality are still developing.

IDK, the very idea deeply concerns me. Is she actually happy transitioned? Or has she had that idea re-enforced by her parents and such?

I have this hypothetical vision of them panicking at their little boy playing with dolls and tea sets and finding solace in the idea that they are just the wrong gender, instead of being "odd".

I know how silly that sounds, but especially in the south of the USA, gender transition is sometimes considered more socially acceptable than homosexuality and/or being an effeminate male (or so some people in the trans community tell me).

Am I just behind the times on this one? Seems like there would have to be some pretty fucking spectacular medical science to back it up where children that young are concerned...

If you want some reading material that delves into this quite extensively check out:

• Denial of Death


• Existential Psychotherapy
  

Sure, it's all laughs and giggles now, but what about later? What about when he lays there in his bed at night alone and starts to think---"Wait, that's how large it's supposed to be? but mine is only..."

Years of psychotherapy in that LOL

@enoch, thanks for your comments. I thought it better to respond directly to your profile than on the video, about which we're no longer discussing directly. Sorry for the length of this reply, but for such a complex topic as this one, a thorough and plainly-stated response is needed.

You wrote: "the REAL question is "what is the purpose of a health care system"? NOT "which market system should we implement for health care"?"

The free market works best for any and all goods and services, regardless of their aim or purpose. Healthcare is no different from any other good or service in this respect.

(And besides, tell me why there's no money in preventative care? Do nutritionists, physical trainers/therapists, psychologists, herbalists, homeopaths, and any other manner of non-allopathic doctors not get paid and make profit in the marketplace? Would not a longer life not lead to a longer-term 'consumer' anyway? And would preventative medicine obliterate the need for all manner of medical treatment, or would there not still remain a need to diagnose, treat, and cure diseases, even in the presence of a robust preventative medical market?)

I realize that my argument is not the "popular" one (and there are certainly many reasons for this, up to and including a lot of disinformation about what constitutes a "free market" health care system). But the way to approach such things is not heuristically, but rationally, as one would approach any other economic issue.

You write "see where i am going with this? It's not so easy to answer and impose your model of the "free market" at the same time."

Yes, as a matter of fact, it is. The purpose of the healthcare system is to provide the most advanced medical service and care possible in the most efficient and affordable way possible. Only a free competitive market can do this with the necessary economic calculations in place to support its progress. No matter how you slice it, a socialized approach to healthcare invariably distorts the market (with its IP fees, undue regulations, and a lack of any accurate metrics on both the supply-side and on the demand-side which helps to determine availability, efficacy, and cost).

"you cannot have "for-profit" and "health-care" work in conjunction with any REAL health care."

Sorry, but this is just absurd. What else can I say?

"but if we use your "free market" model against a more "socialized model".which model would better serve the public?"

The free market model.

"if we take your "free market" model,which would be under the auspices of capitalism."

Redundant: "free market under the auspices of free market."

"disease is where the money is at,THAT is where the profit lies,not in preventive medicine."

Only Krugman-style Keynesians would say that illness is more profitable than health (or war more profitable than peace, or that alien invasions and broken windows are good for the economy). They, like you, aren't taking into account the One Lesson in Economics: look at how it affects every group, not just one group; look at the long term effects, not just short term ones. You're just seeing that, in the short-run, health will be less profitable for medical practitioners (or some pharmaceuticals) that are currently working in the treatment of illness. But look at every group outside that small group and at the long run and you can see that health is more profitable than illness overall. The market that profits more from illness will have to adapt, in ways that only the market knows for sure.

Do you realize that the money you put into socialized medicine (Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, etc.) is money you deplete from prevention entrepreneurship?

(As an aside, I wonder, why do so many people assume that the socialized central planners have some kind of special knowledge or wisdom that entrepreneurs do not? And why is there the belief that unlike entrepreneurs, socialist central planners are not selfishly motivated but always act in the interest of the "common good?" Could this be part of the propagandized and indoctrinated fear that's implicit in living in a socialized environment? Why do serfs (and I'm sure that, at some level, people know that's what they are) love the socialist central planners more than they love themselves? Complex questions about self-esteem and captive minds.)

If fewer people get sick, the market will then demand more practitioners to move from treating illness into other areas like prevention, being a prevention doctor or whatever. You're actually making the argument for free market here, not against it. Socialized bureaucratically dictated medicine will not adapt to the changing needs as efficiently or rapidly as a free market can and would. If more people are getting sick, then we'll need more doctors to treat them. If fewer people are getting sick because preventive medicine takes off, then we'll have more of that type of service. If a socialized healthcare is mandated, then we will invariably have a glut of allopathic doctors, with little need for their services (and we then have the kinds of problems we see amongst doctors who are coerced -- by the threat of losing their license -- to take medicaid and then lie on their reports in order to recoup their costs, e.g., see the article linked here.)

Meanwhile, there has been and will remain huge profits to be made in prevention, as the vitamin, supplements, alternative medicine, naturopathy, exercise and many other industries attest to. What are you talking about, that there's no profit in preventing illness? (In a manner of speaking, that's actually my bread and butter!) If you have a way to prevent illness, you will have more than enough people buying from you, people who don't want to get sick. (And other services for the people who do.) Open a gym. Become a naturopath. Teach stress management, meditation, yoga, zumba, whatever! And there are always those who need treatment, who are sick, and the free market will then have an accurate measure of how to allocate the right resources and number of such practitioners. This is something that the central planners (under socialized services) simply cannot possibly do (except, of course, for the omniscient ones that socialists insist exist).

You wrote "cancer,anxiety,obesity,drug addiction.
all are huge profit generators and all could be dealt with so much more productively and successfully with preventive care,diet and exercise and early diagnosis."

But they won't as long as you have centrally planned (socialized) medicine. The free market forces practitioners to respond to the market's demands. Socialized medicine does not. Entrepreneurs will (as they already have) exploit openings for profit in prevention (without the advantage of regulations which distort the markets) and take the business away from treatment doctors. If anything, doctors prevent preventative medicine from getting more widespread by using government regulations to limit what the preventive practitioners do. In fact, preventive medicine is so profitable that it has many in the medical profession lobbying to curtail it. They are losing much business to alternative/preventive practitioners. They lobby to, for example, prevent herb providers from stating the medical/preventive benefits of their herbs. They even prevent strawberry farmers to tout the health benefits of strawberries! It is the state that is slowing down preventive medicine, not the free market! In Puerto Rico, for example, once the Medical Association lost a bit to prohibit naturopathy, they effectively outlawed acupuncture by successfully getting a law passed that requires all acupuncturists to be medical doctors. Insanity.

If you think there is no profit in preventative care or exercise, think GNC and Richard Simmons, and Pilates, and bodywork, and my own practice of psychotherapy. Many of the successful corporations (I'm thinking of Google and Pixar and SalesForce and Oracle, etc.) see the profit and value in preventative care, which is why they have these "stay healthy" programs for their employees. There's more money in health than illness. No doubt.

Or how about the health food/nutrition business? Or organic farming, or whole foods! The free market could maybe call for fewer oncologists and for more Whole Foods or even better natural food stores. Of course, we don't know the specifics, but that's actually the point. Only the free market knows (and the omniscient socialist central planners) what needs to happen and how.

Imagination! We need to get people to use it more.

You wrote: "but when we consider that the 4th and 5th largest lobbyists are the health insurance industry and the pharmaceutical industry is it any wonder that america has the most fucked up,backwards health care system on the planet."

You're actually making my point here. In a free market, pharmaceutical companies cannot monopolize what "drugs" people can or cannot take, sell or not sell, and cannot prevent natural alternatives from being promoted. Only with state intervention (by way of IP regulations, and so forth) can they do so.

Free market is not corporatism. Free market is not crony capitalism. (More disinformation that needs to be lifted.)

So you're not countering my free market position, you're countering the crony capitalist position. This is a straw man argument, even if in this case you might not have understood my position in the first place. You, like so many others, equate "capitalism" with cronyism or corporatism. Many cannot conceive of a free market that is free from regulation. So folks then argue against their own interests, either for or against "fascist" vs. "socialist" medicine. The free market is, in fact, outside these two positions.

You wrote: "IF we made medicare available to ALL american citizens we would see a shift from latter stage care to a more aggressive preventive care and early diagnosis. the savings in money (and lives) would be staggering."

I won't go into medicare right now (It is a disaster, and so is the current non-free-market insurance industry. See the article linked in my comment above.)

You wrote "this would create a huge paradigm shift here in america and we would see results almost instantly but more so in the coming decades."

I don't want to be a naysayer but, socialism is nothing new. It has been tried (and failed) many times before. The USSR had socialized medicine. So does Cuba (but then you may believe the Michael Moore fairytale about medicine in Cuba). It's probably better to go see in person how Cubans live and how they have no access to the places that Moore visited.

You wrote: "i feel very strongly that health should be a communal effort.a civilized society should take care of each other."

Really, then why try to force me (or anyone) into your idea of "good" medicine? The free market is a communal effort. In fact, it is nothing else (and nothing else is as communal as the free market). Central planning, socialized, top-down decision-making, is not. Never has been. Never will be.

Voluntary interactions is "taking care of each other." Coercion is not. Socialism is coercion. It cannot "work" any other way. A free market is voluntary cooperation.

Economic calculation is necessary to avoid chaos, whatever the purpose of a service. This is economic law. Unless the purpose is to create chaos, you need real prices and efficiency that only the free market can provide.

I hope this helps to clarify (and not confuse) what I wrote on @eric3579's profile.

Surprisingly little money on, say, the exercise regimen or diet or training or psychotherapy...

>> ^hpqp:

>> ^Reefie:
I've often found myself alienated from other men... I think differently, I behave differently, I'm not into typical 'guy' things. Generally I find I understand women relatively well but am totally clueless when it comes to how guys' minds work. At one point in my life I was giving serious thought to the prospect of gender change but there was one obstacle I hadn't counted on - private medical insurance companies and the NHS won't contemplate gender change unless the individual is attracted to those of the same sex. The idea of creating a lesbian didn't go down well with those who have the authority to make such decisions on my behalf.

Wow, that's an extremely bizarre and arbitrary line to draw on the part of the NHS. Maybe they suppose that people like you will have an easier life as a "feminine" heterosexual man (or "male lesbian") than as a transsexual lesbian (and vice-versa for women)?
One thing I've heard from an acquaintance who works with trans people though is that sometimes men and women who are uncomfortable with their gender (often because of childhood trauma) become convinced they are the wrong sex as a means of avoiding tackling those issues. That's one reason why having to go through psychotherapy (the woman I cite is a therapist specialised in this issue) before being allowed to begin hrt/grs is not a bad idea. But refusing gender reassignment just because it'd render you "homosexual", that's pretty absurd.


Despite the absurdity of the denial, in a way I'm glad that option was denied me. It allowed me to come to terms with who I am regardless of my gender. Nowadays I accept that I'm a guy, just not a stereotypical guy. Now the only dilemma I face regularly is the rejection by women who I find attractive (talking both personality and physically, I'm rarely lured by physical attraction alone) since I don't conform to their expectations of the male of the species. Can't blame people for wanting to avoid a fucked-up individual

There's another reason I'm glad the option wasn't available to me... I have two friends who have both gone through the transformation (both are/were guys) and seeing first-hand the emotional anguish they dealt with made me realise I might not have been strong enough to handle the pressures that are imposed on any individual who goes through that process.

... Uncle Frank..? NOOOOOOOO!
>> ^hpqp:

>> ^Reefie:
I've often found myself alienated from other men... I think differently, I behave differently, I'm not into typical 'guy' things. Generally I find I understand women relatively well but am totally clueless when it comes to how guys' minds work. At one point in my life I was giving serious thought to the prospect of gender change but there was one obstacle I hadn't counted on - private medical insurance companies and the NHS won't contemplate gender change unless the individual is attracted to those of the same sex. The idea of creating a lesbian didn't go down well with those who have the authority to make such decisions on my behalf.

Wow, that's an extremely bizarre and arbitrary line to draw on the part of the NHS. Maybe they suppose that people like you will have an easier life as a "feminine" heterosexual man (or "male lesbian") than as a transsexual lesbian (and vice-versa for women)?
One thing I've heard from an acquaintance who works with trans people though is that sometimes men and women who are uncomfortable with their gender (often because of childhood trauma) become convinced they are the wrong sex as a means of avoiding tackling those issues. That's one reason why having to go through psychotherapy (the woman I cite is a therapist specialised in this issue) before being allowed to begin hrt/grs is not a bad idea. But refusing gender reassignment just because it'd render you "homosexual", that's pretty absurd.

>> ^Reefie:

I've often found myself alienated from other men... I think differently, I behave differently, I'm not into typical 'guy' things. Generally I find I understand women relatively well but am totally clueless when it comes to how guys' minds work. At one point in my life I was giving serious thought to the prospect of gender change but there was one obstacle I hadn't counted on - private medical insurance companies and the NHS won't contemplate gender change unless the individual is attracted to those of the same sex. The idea of creating a lesbian didn't go down well with those who have the authority to make such decisions on my behalf.


Wow, that's an extremely bizarre and arbitrary line to draw on the part of the NHS. Maybe they suppose that people like you will have an easier life as a "feminine" heterosexual man (or "male lesbian") than as a transsexual lesbian (and vice-versa for women)?

One thing I've heard from an acquaintance who works with trans people though is that sometimes men and women who are uncomfortable with their gender (often because of childhood trauma) become convinced they are the wrong sex as a means of avoiding tackling those issues. That's one reason why having to go through psychotherapy (the woman I cite is a therapist specialised in this issue) before being allowed to begin hrt/grs is not a bad idea. But refusing gender reassignment just because it'd render you "homosexual", that's pretty absurd.

>> ^messenger:

Buddhism is a religion. A religion doesn't have to have gods. Perhaps what you mean is Buddhism isn't a religion that requires total control. Jainism is another example of a religion without gods.
I didn't make clear my point about laws, etc. and control: I'm reading into your comments that anything that is about control is always a bad thing, or is always for nefarious purposes. I got this impression because you ended your argument with the conclusion that religions are all about control, as if that was a slam-dunk making them all cults. I pointed out a series of other instances where requiring control over a person wasn't evil, and was even benevolent. This should lead to the conclusion that a religion that asserts control over someone's life may be doing so with good intent. I also did this to highlight the difference between "control" and "excessive control" which you left out. Parental control is normally a good thing. Excessive parental control is a bad thing. Where's the line between control and excessive control? Dunno.
I think you overstated your challenge to me, as there is no religion that requires the relinquishing of free will. They either require or suggest self-control in certain areas, if that's what you mean, but none require relinquishing all decision-making, not even the extreme ones like Jainism, orthodox Judaism, or fundamentalist Islam.>> ^A10anis:
Buddhism is not a religion in the context of this discussion. Neither is the law etc! That said, I will gladly concede, if you can name me a religion/cult which does not require total submission and the relinquishing of free will. I'm done...>> ^messenger:
All faiths do not have the same agenda. That's a ridiculous statement, even if you restrict it to long-established religions. For example, Buddhism seeks to help you find the best person you can be for its own sake, not for the service of some higher power. That's not excessive, and equating it with Scientology in terms of degree of control is not accurate. As for control, yes, all systems --both religious and secular-- involve control. This includes laws, government systems, psychotherapy and parenting. You left out the word "excessive". It's important. Cults are perceived to have excessive control. What constitutes excessive is a matter of debate or personal opinion, but tarring them all with the same brush is still simplistic.

You are a moron, fond only of the nonsense you spout.You have nothing of intellect to convey, so be quiet and know your place...

Buddhism is a religion. A religion doesn't have to have gods. Perhaps what you mean is Buddhism isn't a religion that requires total control. Jainism is another example of a religion without gods.

I didn't make clear my point about laws, etc. and control: I'm reading into your comments that anything that is about control is always a bad thing, or is always for nefarious purposes. I got this impression because you ended your argument with the conclusion that religions are all about control, as if that was a slam-dunk making them all cults. I pointed out a series of other instances where requiring control over a person wasn't evil, and was even benevolent. This should lead to the conclusion that a religion that asserts control over someone's life may be doing so with good intent. I also did this to highlight the difference between "control" and "excessive control" which you left out. Parental control is normally a good thing. Excessive parental control is a bad thing. Where's the line between control and excessive control? Dunno.

I think you overstated your challenge to me, as there is no religion that requires the relinquishing of free will. They either require or suggest self-control in certain areas, if that's what you mean, but none require relinquishing all decision-making, not even the extreme ones like Jainism, orthodox Judaism, or fundamentalist Islam.>> ^A10anis:
Buddhism is not a religion in the context of this discussion. Neither is the law etc! That said, I will gladly concede, if you can name me a religion/cult which does not require total submission and the relinquishing of free will. I'm done...>> ^messenger:
All faiths do not have the same agenda. That's a ridiculous statement, even if you restrict it to long-established religions. For example, Buddhism seeks to help you find the best person you can be for its own sake, not for the service of some higher power. That's not excessive, and equating it with Scientology in terms of degree of control is not accurate. As for control, yes, all systems --both religious and secular-- involve control. This includes laws, government systems, psychotherapy and parenting. You left out the word "excessive". It's important. Cults are perceived to have excessive control. What constitutes excessive is a matter of debate or personal opinion, but tarring them all with the same brush is still simplistic.

>> ^messenger:

All faiths do not have the same agenda. That's a ridiculous statement, even if you restrict it to long-established religions. For example, Buddhism seeks to help you find the best person you can be for its own sake, not for the service of some higher power. That's not excessive, and equating it with Scientology in terms of degree of control is not accurate. As for control, yes, all systems --both religious and secular-- involve control. This includes laws, government systems, psychotherapy and parenting. You left out the word "excessive". It's important. Cults are perceived to have excessive control. What constitutes excessive is a matter of debate or personal opinion, but tarring them all with the same brush is still simplistic.>> ^A10anis:
>> ^messenger:
A good question, what the difference is. Trying to come up with any definition that distinguishes a religion from a cult is very difficult for me. Saying there's no difference because of the similarities is simplistic though.
OED's definitions of the two are basically the same except for this:
cult: 1 ...

All faiths do not have the same agenda. That's a ridiculous statement, even if you restrict it to long-established religions. For example, Buddhism seeks to help you find the best person you can be for its own sake, not for the service of some higher power. That's not excessive, and equating it with Scientology in terms of degree of control is not accurate. As for control, yes, all systems --both religious and secular-- involve control. This includes laws, government systems, psychotherapy and parenting. You left out the word "excessive". It's important. Cults are perceived to have excessive control. What constitutes excessive is a matter of debate or personal opinion, but tarring them all with the same brush is still simplistic.>> ^A10anis:

>> ^messenger:
A good question, what the difference is. Trying to come up with any definition that distinguishes a religion from a cult is very difficult for me. Saying there's no difference because of the similarities is simplistic though.
OED's definitions of the two are basically the same except for this:
cult: 1 ...

Funny that you should tell KnivesOut to educate himself and refer him to a link to wikipedia when in a previous comment you said "quoting from the liberally biased wikipedia doesn't help your case.". So are you suggesting that a liberal bias only helps your case and not anybody else's? It's also funny that you should be telling people to educate themselves about NLP when in your comment on your video you call NLP " the mind control technique of NLP, which is nero logistical programming". Seriously, NERO LOGISTICAL???? I give up, for me that pretty much somes up your intellectual investment in this thread.

PS: To quote wikipedia "NLP has been largely ignored by conventional social science in part due to a lack of professional credibility and insufficient empirical evidence to substantiate its effectiveness,[14][15] and is characterized by its critics, mainly psychologists, as a fringe psychotherapy or as having pseudoscientific characteristics, disputing its title, concepts, and terminology".>> ^shinyblurry:

medicare is unconstitutional, humanists have conspired to replace creation with evolution (i have 100 quotes from secular humanists proving this), this world will end climate change or not, and all sin leads to death
in any case, NLP isnt something the AAPS came up with..why dont you read a little bit about it and educate yourself
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguistic_programming
a lot of famous "magicians" use it in their acts..for example, when they go up to someone and say a bunch of nonsense words and phrases in rapid succession and the subject collapses like a switch was flipped..thats NLP
>> ^KnivesOut:
Some of the other lies published by the Association of American Physicians:

• that the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services are unconstitutional


• that "humanists" have conspired to replace the "creation religion of Jehovah" with evolution


• that human activity has not contributed to climate change, and that global warming will be beneficial and thus not a cause for concern


• that HIV does not cause AIDS


• that the "gay male lifestyle" shortens life expectancy by 20 years.

Describing their trips I noticed a few recurring themes. First, the stoppage of time. I've read a few books on time limited psychotherapy and they came to mind there. True joy is the state of timelessness - you lose all anxiety if there's no yesterday or tomorrow. Second was the loss of the physical self. This made me think of the supression of activity in the superior parietal lobe, (the part that processes your spatial awareness, including where your 'outer shell' is in space), which is possible with good meditation.
I also noticed the one lady saying she saw a pink light and tried to make it white, suggesting she had some knowledge that the trip was exclusively from her own mind and there was the possibility of controlling it.

Not to be a dick, but I think the problem I have with this is that a psychiatrist performed the tests without a neurologist.

A great organization:

MAPS (Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies)
MMAPS' mission is 1) to treat conditions for which conventional medicines provide limited relief—such as posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), pain, drug dependence, anxiety and depression associated with end-of-life issues—by developing psychedelics and marijuana into prescription medicines; 2) to treat many thousands of people by building a network of clinics where treatments can be provided; and 3) to educate the public honestly about the risks and benefits of psychedelics and marijuana.

MDMA for PTSD
MAPS’ top priority project is funding clinical trials of methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) as a therapeutic tool to assist psychotherapy for the treatment of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and other illnesses. Preliminary studies have shown that MDMA in conjunction with psychotherapy can help people overcome PTSD. MDMA has empathogenic effects, and it is also known as the popular drug Ecstasy (although "Ecstasy" does not always contain pure MDMA). In laboratory studies, MDMA has been proven sufficiently safe for human consumption when taken a limited number of times in moderate doses.

LSD/Psilocybin for Anxiety Related to Life-threatening Illness
LSD is short for d-lysergic acid diethylamide, and was discovered to be a psychedelic substance by Dr. Albert Hofmann on April 19, 1943. Psilocybin is a psychedelic compound also discovered by Hofmann which are found in psychedelic mushrooms. These mushrooms have been used for thousands of years by a variety of indigenous cultures for a variety of religious and therapeutic purposes. Both of these substances are well known for eliciting personal growth and mystical experiences in people who use them wisely. MAPS is interested in these substances for their potential to help people with a variety of conditions. Currently we are focused on developing these drugs into prescription medicines to treat anxiety associated with life-threatening illnesses.

Though there has been substantial prior research with LSD in cancer patients that demonstrated safety and some degree of efficacy, that research was conducted over 35 years ago. In order to generate data that will be accepted by today’s regulatory agencies, new protocols must meet modern drug development standards. Our research has had to start from scratch and has been designed carefully. Our LSD and psilocybin studies will be used to guide the development of future treatment approaches.