Forgetting the intermediate steps of glycolysis is just like the moral and medical implications of allowing a child to undergo sex-modifying medical therapy.
No, but it's a lot like forgetting the physiology of puberty, which was my point.
But, y'know, don't take my word for it. Take the word of
the Endocrine Society, who designed these practice guidelines.(pp. 13-17.) You might have heard of them; they also publish several leading journals in the field.
"Over the past decade, clinicians have progressively
acknowledged the suffering of young transsexual
adolescents that is caused by their pubertal
development. Indeed, an adolescent with GID
often considers the pubertal physical changes to
be unbearable. As early medical intervention may
prevent this psychological harm, various clinics
have decided to start treating young adolescents
with GID with puberty-suppressing medication (a
GnRH analogue). As compared with starting sex
reassignment long after the first phases of puberty,
a benefit of pubertal suppression is relief of gender
dysphoria and a better psychological and physical
outcome.
(...)
Recommendations
2.1. We recommend that adolescents who fulfill
eligibility and readiness criteria for gender
reassignment initially undergo treatment to suppress
pubertal development. (1| )
2.2. We recommend that suppression of pubertal
hormones start when girls and boys first exhibit
physical changes of puberty (confirmed by pubertal
levels of estradiol and testosterone, respectively), but
no earlier than Tanner stages 23. (1| )
2.1.2.2. Evidence
Pubertal suppression aids in the diagnostic and
therapeutic phase, in a manner similar to the RLE
(60, 61). Management of gender dysphoria usually
improves. In addition, the hormonal changes are fully
reversible, enabling full pubertal development in the
biologic gender if appropriate. Therefore, we advise
starting suppression of puberty before irreversible
development of sex characteristics. (...)
Another reason to start sex reassignment early is that
the physical outcome following intervention in
adulthood is far less satisfactory than intervention at
age 16 (36, 38). Looking like a man (woman) when
living as a woman (man) creates difficult barriers with
enormous life-long disadvantages.
Pubertal suppression maintains end-organ sensitivity
to sex steroids observed during early puberty, enabling
satisfactory cross-sex body changes with low doses and
avoiding irreversible characteristics that occur by
mid-puberty. (...)
An advantage of using GnRH analogues is the
reversibility of the intervention. If, after extensive
exploring of his/her reassignment wish, the applicant
no longer desires sex reassignment, pubertal
suppression can be discontinued. Spontaneous
pubertal development will resume immediately (66)."
There, happy? Official treatment protocols for endocrinologists. I've left out a few pages. They also talk about ruling out transient gender identity issues, and about the possibility that suppressing puberty could lead to lower bone density, just like natural later puberty does. (And early puberty leads to gonadal cancers, so as with everything there's a tradeoff.) But you get the gist.
Now if someone with some endocrinology credentials wants to come on here and argue, I will happily back down. But I also think they would be better off arguing with the writers of these treatment guidelines in a journal than arguing with a nameless pre-med on the internet. After all, science is about getting the truth out there, whatever that is.
I think the leading experts on endocrinology are probably closer to the truth than a bunch of people talking trash on SDN, and that includes me.
Now, anyone want to take a shot of liquid courage and claim to be smarter than the Endocrine Society? (Hint: I don't.)
At the very least I would like to think most people here would take the Endocrine Society's word over that of the Daily Mail.
Conceded.
