Instigator / Pro
0
1309
rating
269
debates
40.71%
won
Topic
#5165
In most cases, anyone who is 10 years old or older should be allowed to get a gender surgery
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
Contender / Con
0
1476
rating
336
debates
40.77%
won
Description
Dont accept if you are not Mall.
Round 1
"Be allowed" means to let them do it. It doesnt mean helping them do it, rather simply it means not preventing it.
I propose the following logical conclusion:
P1. If reduction in pain caused by gender surgeries in total outweigh pain caused by gender surgeries, gender surgeries should be allowed in most cases.
P2. Reduction in pain caused by gender surgeries in total outweigh pain caused by gender surgeries.
Conclusion: Gender surgeries should be allowed in most cases.
Gender surgery means reduction in birth rates. This means reduction of pain in the world by reducing population, reducing resource shortage.
My position does not mean that 10 year old will get gender surgery if he just asks for it.
Most 10 year olds dont have money. Parents or state would decide if money should be provided for surgery or not.
Benefits of gender surgeries include: lowering suicide risk, improving bodily autonomy, reducing depression, allowing a person to get what person wants, lowering non-satisfaction with body.
To say that 10 year old should be denied of all medical treatment is absurd, and gender surgery is a medical treatment that greatly reduces pain.
"Research consistently shows that people who choose gender affirmation surgery experience reduced gender incongruence and improved quality of life. Depending on the procedure, 94% to 100% of people report satisfaction with their surgery results.
Gender-affirming surgery provides long-term mental health benefits, too. Studies consistently show that gender affirmation surgery reduces gender dysphoria and related conditions, like anxiety and depression.
What is the regret rate for gender-affirming surgery?
Very few people who have gender-affirming surgery regret their decision. Research tracking the outcomes following gender affirmation surgeries shows that among people who opt for gender-affirming surgery, only 1% regret having the procedure."
"Gender-affirming surgery produces numerous benefits, according to a study by researchers from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. These include better mental health, a reduction in suicidal thoughts, and reduced rates of smoking. The study, published online April 28, 2021, by JAMA Surgery, drew on the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey, which was answered by more than 27,000 transgender and gender-diverse adults. Its goal was to identify whether people who underwent gender-affirming surgeries had better mental health outcomes than those who didn’t. The researchers wanted to study this issue because the number of gender-affirming surgeries is rising in the United States, and there is limited information about how people fare in the wake of these procedures. The researchers compared people who had undergone one or more types of gender-affirming surgery in the past two years and people who said they wanted to undergo surgery but hadn’t yet. They found that those who had surgery had a 42% reduction in psychological distress, 35% reduction in cigarette smoking in the past year, and a 44% lower likelihood of having thoughts of suicide. The study authors said that the findings provide more support for gender-affirming surgical care."
"Many transgender patients before undergoing gender affirming procedures are looking to have a higher quality of life living as their identifying gender and believe that gender affirming procedures will help provide that. As you might imagine, a higher quality of life is a benefit many patients experience after undergoing surgery. While hormone therapy can make a big difference in one’s transition journey, gender affirming procedures are essential for helping transgender people truly look and feel like themselves.
One study measuring transgender patients’ overall quality of life post-surgery found that three-quarters of patients who underwent a gender affirming surgery have a better quality of life now.
A number of pre-surgery transgender patients struggle with low self-image, self-esteem, and with positive body image because they don’t look and feel masculine or feminine enough. One of the benefits many patients hope to experience from surgery is feeling more confident in themselves and their gender. One study of transgender men showed that participants had lower self-esteem than cis-gender men and that a mastectomy improved their body image, self-esteem, and self-worth."
"When transgender people undergo sex-reassignment surgery, the beneficial effect on their mental health is still evident - and increasing - years later, a Swedish study suggests.
Overall, people in the study with gender incongruence - that is, their biological gender doesn’t match the gender with which they identify - were six times more likely than people in the general population to visit a doctor for mood and anxiety disorders. They were also three times more likely to be prescribed antidepressants, and six times more likely to be hospitalized after a suicide attempt, researchers found.
But among trans people who had undergone gender-affirming surgery, the longer ago their surgery, the less likely they were to suffer anxiety, depression or suicidal behavior during the study period, researchers reported in The American Journal of Psychiatry.
Surgery to modify a person’s sex characteristics “is often the last and the most considered step in the treatment process for gender dysphoria,” according to the World Professional Association for Transgender Health.
Many transsexual, transgender, and gender-nonconforming individuals "find comfort with their gender identity, role, and expression without surgery," but for others, "surgery is essential and medically necessary to alleviate their gender dysphoria," according to the organization."
"Results: Both transmasculine and transfeminine groups were more satisfied with their body postoperatively with significantly less dysphoria. Body congruency score for chest, body hair, and voice improved significantly in 40 years' postoperative settings, with average scores ranging from 84.2 to 96.2. Body congruency scores for genitals ranged from 67.5 to 79 with free flap phalloplasty showing highest scores. Long-term overall body congruency score was 89.6. Improved mental health outcomes persisted following surgery with significantly reduced suicidal ideation and reported resolution of any mental health comorbidity secondary to gender dysphoria.
Conclusion: Gender-affirming surgery is a durable treatment that improves overall patient well-being. High patient satisfaction, improved dysphoria, and reduced mental health comorbidities persist decades after GAS without any reported patient regret."
"But among trans people who had undergone gender-affirming surgery, the longer ago their surgery, the less likely they were to suffer anxiety, depression or suicidal behavior during the study period, researchers reported in The American Journal of Psychiatry."
"The operation itself never felt like vaginoplasty. Instead it feels like I always had vagina, and the operation was to correct a problem. After surgery, my mind and my body were in harmony, a feeling I had never had before. Having suffered from dysphoria all my life I now feel only love towards my body. I don’t question my gender anymore. I’m just living my life, as I was meant to live it and I am very, very grateful for the referral letter I got from GenderGP that allowed me to move forward with my surgery. You guys made one chick a very happy person!"
""Gender is a condition. You have the gender you have and the gender that you have may or may not match your genitalia. [With] Gender Dysphoria, the dysphoria is the bad feeling, the pain, the disease of having to deal with it."
"When I saw Dr. Carey, I cried," Hansen reflected. "It was such a big moment because I knew my surgery was actually going to happen. Any questions I had, he was on top of it.""
"The study examined data from the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey, which included nearly 20,000 participants, 38.8% of whom identified as transgender women, 32.5% of whom identified as transgender men, and 26.6% of whom identified as nonbinary. Of the respondents, 12.8% had undergone gender-affirming surgery at least two years prior and 59.2% wanted to undergo surgery but had not done so yet.
Gender-affirming surgeries were associated with a 42% reduction in psychological distress and a 44% reduction in suicidal ideation when compared with transgender and gender-diverse people who had not had gender-affirming surgery but wanted it, according to the findings. The study also found a 35% reduction in tobacco smoking among people who had gender-affirming surgeries.
“Going into this study, we certainly did believe that the gender-affirming surgeries would be protective against adverse mental health outcomes,” lead author Anthony Almazan, an MPH candidate at Harvard Chan School, said in an April 28, 2021, HealthDay article. “I think we were pleasantly surprised by the strength of the magnitudes of these associations, which really are very impressive and, in our opinion, speaks to the importance of gender-affirming surgery as medically necessary treatment for transgender and gender diverse people who are seeking out this kind of affirmation.”"
"In most cases, anyone who is 10 years old or older should be allowed to get a gender surgery"
One thing I request to see an expounding on if not done so already is the opposing side going into arguments for why most cases and not all cases.
Meaning the minority of cases, least of cases , why that group shouldn't be allowed by whom of what authority, why that group shouldn't be allowed.
All in all, people 10 years old and older are allowed to do anything that their legal guardians, legal caretakers that are responsible for authorize them to do. These people should be allowed to do anything that is authorized by their legal authorities.
These people should be allowed to do anything that their legal authorities have reared, taught, trained them to do.
The opposing side says anyone who is 10 years old or older should be allowed to get a gender surgery with a period at the end .
Which means it's solely alone based on the feeling, perhaps whim and decision of the individual.
My position is no, it is not or should be not given the nature of how ALL people have to be cultivated first. That's ALL people.
Now all people can do things or should do things based on personal tastes, flavors and tendencies.
But people doing things related to sex, sexual decisions and gender qualities have to be reared and educated on. We have sexual health education, we have education on human anatomy and function, biology(gender configuration), nutrition.
So just speaking to nutrition being that I listed, it's not that all people should just consume whatever. The legal authorities first have their responsibility on the five major food groups, proper nutrition, proper diet and health.
"My position does not mean that 10 year old will get gender surgery if he just asks for it.
Most 10 year olds dont have money. Parents or state would decide if money should be provided for surgery or not."
So already right here the opposing side agrees that the decision is in the authorities of the child thus going against the flat statement of the debate topic.
"To say that 10 year old should be denied of all medical treatment is absurd, and gender surgery is a medical treatment that greatly reduces pain."
In either event what should be and not is up to the authorities as you say who may or may not have the financial wherewithal for said procedures.
"Depending on the procedure, 94% to 100% of people report satisfaction with their surgery results."
Definitely can't be one hundred percent. I'm aware of transition regret cases not to mention cases regarding teenagers. But this is unimportant to the crux of my stance.
So overall, the benefits, the complications, that all has to be considered by those in authority making decisions over the children.
Then you have those that are adult that require special need caretakers. I don't know if the opposing side has considered that. The same applies as sole responsibility to their caretakers.
Round 2
One thing I request to see an expounding on if not done so already is the opposing side going into arguments for why most cases and not all cases.
The topic deals with most cases. It says so in the topic.
Which means it's solely alone based on the feeling, perhaps whim and decision of the individual.
If individual doesnt have money, then it is based on parents or government or someone else providing money.
My position is no, it is not or should be not given the nature of how ALL people have to be cultivated first. That's ALL people.Now all people can do things or should do things based on personal tastes, flavors and tendencies.
Since your position is no, you take position that children in most cases should be prevented from getting gender surgeries. We will see through more studies why that is a less moral position.
My opponent says that they have to be cultivated first, but doesnt explain why someone has to be "cultivated" to get medical treatment, or why "cultivated" contradicts with being allowed to have medical treatment. Obviously, overwhelming majority of doctors would first make sure its what child wants before doing surgery. While some doctors may reject to perform such surgeries, as long as there is a doctor who wants to perform it and child has money for it, in most cases no one should act to prevent it. Not the state, not the society, not the individual. If child doesnt have the money, but parents provide the money after making sure its what child wants, no one should act to prevent it. And those represent majority of cases, along with state providing money and doing the same.
My opponent ultimately misunderstood the topic. He confuses "allowing them to do" with "helping them do it". The two claims dont include each other. I can allow you to do something without helping you at all.
But people doing things related to sex, sexual decisions and gender qualities have to be reared and educated on.
So you can educate them before age 10, or before providing money.
Definitely can't be one hundred percent.
The topic deals with most cases.
Almost no medical intervention has 100% success rate, but trans surgeries have at least 94% success rate, which is more than many other surgeries that are considered necessary. Will my opponent say that cancer surgeries should be banned?
"Gender dysphoria is a term that describes a sense of unease that a person may have because of a mismatch between their biological sex and their gender identity.
This sense of unease or dissatisfaction may be so intense it can lead to depression and anxiety and have a harmful impact on daily life.
People with gender dysphoria may have changed their appearance, their behaviour or their interests.
They may also show signs of discomfort or distress, including:
• low self-esteem
• becoming withdrawn or socially isolated
• depression or anxiety
• taking unnecessary risks
• neglecting themselves"
"Through their research, Dr. Colman and his team found that transgender teens had a five times higher risk of suicidal ideationTrusted Source — thinking about suicide — than their cisgender, heterosexual peers.
Transgender adolescents were 7.6 times as likely to attempt suicide as cisgender peers."
"For the first 40 years of their life, Texas resident Kelly Fleming spent a portion of most years in a deep depression. As an adult, Fleming—who uses they/them pronouns and who asked to use a pseudonym to protect their safety—would shave their face in the shower with the lights off so neither they nor their wife would have to confront the reality of their body.
What Fleming was experiencing, although they did not know it at the time, was gender dysphoria: the acute and chronic distress of living in a body that does not reflect one’s gender and the desire to have bodily characteristics of that gender. While in therapy, Fleming discovered research linking access to gender-affirming hormone therapy with reduced depression in transgender people. They started a very low dose of estradiol, and the depression episodes became shorter, less frequent and less intense. Now they look at their body with joy.
So when Fleming sees what authorities in Texas, Alabama, Florida and other states are doing to bar transgender teens and children from receiving gender-affirming medical care, it infuriates them. And they are worried for their children, ages 12 and 14, both of whom are agender—a identity on the transgender spectrum that is neither masculine nor feminine.
“I’m just so excited to see them being able to present themselves in a way that makes them happy,” Fleming says. “They are living their best life regardless of what others think, and that’s a privilege that I did not get to have as a younger person.”"
"The truth is that data from more than a dozen studies of more than 30,000 transgender and gender-diverse young people consistently show that access to gender-affirming care is associated with better mental health outcomes—and that lack of access to such care is associated with higher rates of suicidality, depression and self-harming behavior. (Gender diversity refers to the extent to which a person’s gendered behaviors, appearance and identities are culturally incongruent with the sex they were assigned at birth. Gender-diverse people can identify along the transgender spectrum, but not all do.) Major medical organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the Endocrine Society, the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association, have published policy statements and guidelines on how to provide age-appropriate gender-affirming care. All of those medical societies find such care to be evidence-based and medically necessary."
We see that gender surgery desired by person carries possibilities of benefits that outweigh harm, and that remove harm, remove pain and remove discomfort in greater amount than they cause it.
There is also no significant difference when it comes to mentally ill people.
To claim that mentally ill people should be denied of healthcare is by itself an absurd claim.
It has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that gender surgery provides benefits to those who want it and who are above age 18.
It does so in overwhelming majority of cases. So not 51% or 51 out of 100, but in at least 94% of cases or 94 out of 100.
Gender surgery achieves better success than most medications and than most other surgeries.
Most cancer surgeries only have about 50% success rate, but no one would say that anyone should be denied of cancer surgery just because it has high failure rate.
"In 2021, about 42,000 children and teens across the United States received a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, nearly triple the number in 2017, according to data Komodo compiled for Reuters. Gender dysphoria is defined as the distress caused by a discrepancy between a person’s gender identity and the one assigned to them at birth.
Overall, the analysis found that at least 121,882 children ages 6 to 17 were diagnosed with gender dysphoria from 2017 through 2021. Reuters found similar trends when it requested state-level data on diagnoses among children covered by Medicaid, the public insurance program for lower-income families.
Gender-affirming care for youths takes several forms, from social recognition of a preferred name and pronouns to medical interventions such as hormone therapy and, sometimes, surgery. A small but increasing number of U.S. children diagnosed with gender dysphoria are choosing medical interventions to express their identity and help alleviate their distress."
"Some studies suggest that rates of regret have declined over the years as patient selection and treatment methods have improved. In a review of 27 studies involving almost 8,000 teens and adults who had transgender surgeries, mostly in Europe, the U.S and Canada, 1% on average expressed regret. For some, regret was temporary, but a small number went on to have detransitioning or reversal surgeries, the 2021 review said.
Research suggests that comprehensive psychological counseling before starting treatment, along with family support, can reduce chances for regret and detransitioning."
"My own personal experience is that it is quite uncommon,” Irwig said. “I’ve taken care of over 350 gender-diverse patients and probably fewer than five have told me that they decided to detransition or changed their minds."
"In the Netherlands, a study of transgender young people found that only 1.9% of young people on puberty blockers did not want to continue with the medical transition."
"Transgender children are unlikely to "detransition," or come to identify with their birth sex, five years after their social transition, a new study found.
The findings, published Wednesday in the journal Pediatrics, come from a larger project called the Trans Youth Project. Researchers at Princeton University began in 2013 to track 317 kids between ages 3 and 12 who socially transitioned — the first and largest sample of its kind, according to Kristina Olsen, the study’s lead author and a professor of psychology at Princeton."
"The topic deals with most cases. It says so in the topic."
The opposing side did not expound on why most cases and not all. This is most likely they do agree with my stance in those minority cases. But what would be the distinction be for ?
They shy away from that.
"If individual doesnt have money, then it is based on parents or government or someone else providing money."
If the individual is a minor it's ALWAYS based on a decision of a legal guardian and representative for what that minor is allowed to do.
"Since your position is no, you take position that children in most cases should be prevented from getting gender surgeries. We will see through more studies why that is a less moral position."
No that is not my position. I specifically told you what my position is. Why tell me what it is when I'm here to tell you. I just said it.
Let me state it again.
"All in all, people 10 years old and older are allowed to do anything that their legal guardians, legal caretakers that are responsible for authorize them to do. These people should be allowed to do anything that is authorized by their legal authorities.
These people should be allowed to do anything that their legal authorities have reared, taught, trained them to do."
So it's not about shouldn't be allowed. It's based on what has been authorized and or cultivated that would make what should be or should not.
If I'm not mistaken, the opposing side is about the children and older having equal opportunity to make the decisions on their own to include gender transitions.
That's not what I'm arguing .
It is no more moral than a parent making the decision because they are looked to for moral compass. I don't care what studies you have. If the studies exclude parental guidance which is mandated legally, they're isolated studies thus inadmissible.
"My opponent says that they have to be cultivated first, but doesnt explain why someone has to be "cultivated" to get medical treatment, or why "cultivated" contradicts with being allowed to have medical treatment."
All people have to be reared or cultivated first. I did explain this but you either skimmed over it, didn't understand or whatever. I'm going to just repeat a lot of things from the previous round because sometimes it takes repetition like in a classroom or when you're studying. We got to keep going over and over it until it sinks in.
"The opposing side says anyone who is 10 years old or older should be allowed to get a gender surgery with a period at the end .
Which means it's solely alone based on the feeling, perhaps whim and decision of the individual.
My position is no, it is not or should be not given the nature of how ALL people have to be cultivated first. That's ALL people.
Now all people can do things or should do things based on personal tastes, flavors and tendencies.
But people doing things related to sex, sexual decisions and gender qualities have to be reared and educated on. We have sexual health education, we have education on human anatomy and function, biology(gender configuration), nutrition."
Here's a good amount of detailed explanation right here in this last paragraph.
All the opposing side has to do is actually question this information, request further clarity on it. How else do we know if you're really reading this stuff?
Come on .
People doing things related to sex, sexual decisions and gender qualities have to be reared and educated on.
"What do I mean by this" could of been an appropriate question from the opposing side.
A person has to be educated to make an informed decision. That's not something that's natural or innate. Particularly when it comes to sex. That's why we have statutory rape laws or crimes with molestation. We have to be educated on the ramifications, the societal accepted behaviors and recognitions of what makes one gender versus another and what it means perhaps permanently for anyone.
This isn't just somebody liking chocolate or vanilla or blue or pink, innate tendencies. This is why it's left up to the parents/guardians whom we look to for moral guidance. It's their responsibility serving a compass in deciding and or cultivating for ALL people.
I never said anything about contradiction. I just explained basically that any medical treatment that is allowed is based on the decision and or cultivation of the authoritative figure.
"Obviously, overwhelming majority of doctors would first make sure its what child wants before doing surgery. "
This is totally false. Every doctor has to get a signature from a legal guardian before any medical procedure takes place. Things are done based on their discretion. A doctor can't operate based on wants of a child. In can be taken into consideration. There are things that children don't want but a legal guardian still has to act in the best interest of that child regardless.
"While some doctors may reject to perform such surgeries, as long as there is a doctor who wants to perform it and child has money for it, in most cases no one should act to prevent it. "
"Not the state, not the society, not the individual. If child doesnt have the money, but parents provide the money after making sure its what child wants, no one should act to prevent it. And those represent majority of cases, along with state providing money and doing the same."
In all cases of children it is up to the legal guardians within the law. Nobody outside of that is correct, nor have the right, nor should dictate that. About children having money, that's up to the legal guardian on how the medical services are compensated for.
We had this debate already. Children are not equal to adults. Adults are the authority over children.
"My opponent ultimately misunderstood the topic. He confuses "allowing them to do" with "helping them do it". The two claims dont include each other. I can allow you to do something without helping you at all."
My stance has nothing to do with helping but authorizing and or being cultivated to do or for something to be allowed.
"So you can educate them before age 10, or before providing money."
Oh the education continues. It doesn't stop at age 10 and what'll be done with that money will be authorized by whom provides it. For it to be provided , that has to be approved with the providing of it .
It's not really necessary being that the minor is under the care of an adult. The adult makes the decision with their money.
"The topic deals with most cases."
Then you agree to some extent with me because you're arguing over MOST cases .
"Almost no medical intervention has 100% success rate, but trans surgeries have at least 94% success rate, which is more than many other surgeries that are considered necessary. Will my opponent say that cancer surgeries should be banned?"
If it was my position. I don't think the opposing side realizes that my position is not about children shouldn't have gender transitioning. My position is that it's not up to them. The opposing side is saying it is for the most part. I believe they agree it is not up to them in all cases.
The remaining of what the opposing side had to say was just information regarding the reality of transgender research and data which doesn't supercede that it's up to the minor's guardian what should be or not .
Round 3
The opposing side did not expound on why most cases and not all.
Topic says most cases.
If the individual is a minor it's ALWAYS based on a decision of a legal guardian and representative for what that minor is allowed to do.
We are debating "should be allowed". Not what currently is or isnt allowed.
No that is not my position. I specifically told you what my position is. Why tell me what it is when I'm here to tell you. I just said it.
My position is that in most cases, it should be allowed. Your position, the Con position, must be that it shouldnt be allowed in most cases. If you say that it should be allowed in most cases, you forfeit.
If the studies exclude parental guidance which is mandated legally, they're isolated studies thus inadmissible.
The studies do talk about how parents should be supportive of their children, and how trans surgeries are very beneficial to people who desire them. If you think that parents have right to deny their children of healthcare, try defending that position then.
A person has to be educated to make an informed decision.
Nobody would deny baby of healthcare just because baby cant make informed decision.
This is totally false. Every doctor has to get a signature from a legal guardian before any medical procedure takes place. Things are done based on their discretion. A doctor can't operate based on wants of a child. In can be taken into consideration. There are things that children don't want but a legal guardian still has to act in the best interest of that child regardless.
My opponent seems to be confusing what should be with what is.
Plus, he says that "guardian has to act in the best interest of that child". Since trans surgery desired by someone is almost always in the best interest of that someone, what more needs to be said?
If it was my position. I don't think the opposing side realizes that my position is not about children shouldn't have gender transitioning. My position is that it's not up to them. The opposing side is saying it is for the most part. I believe they agree it is not up to them in all cases.
The topic does not deal with what is right now, but what should be.
Hot topic huh.
Number 2 next to pedophilia. Maybe number 1.
Everybody chime in, in the comments.
"Topic says most cases."
I appreciate your conceding at least in some cases. My question was why does it not extend to most cases?
Now typically people deflect from a question to avoid some sort of refutation or contradiction. Kind of like refusing to answer a question in court, pleading the fifth on the grounds of possible incrimination.
Just setting that straight.
"We are debating "should be allowed". Not what currently is or isnt allowed."
Ok I'll put it this way. What should be allowed is what the law already agrees with and that is the authority of the legal guardians over the children making the decisions, not the minors themselves.
"Your position, the Con position, must be that it shouldnt be allowed in most cases. If you say that it should be allowed in most cases, you forfeit."
It's neither. All my position has to be is opposed to the topic statement. You say it should be allowed period. I say it should be allowed based on the legal authorities, not it should be allowed period.
Do you get the difference/disagreement?
If you agree it should be allowed based on the legal authorities, then you abandon your own position.
"The studies do talk about how parents should be supportive of their children, and how trans surgeries are very beneficial to people who desire them. "
It's not about being supportive. It's about the legal guardian taking responsibility in doing what is best which may or may not align with the minor's desires.
Sorry but the legal guardian is just that. The legal guardian is not a supportive friend in everything.
"If you think that parents have right to deny their children of healthcare, try defending that position then."
That's a strawman. This whole debate including the other one I've argued over and over how the legal guardian acts within the best interest under the law for the welfare of the minor. So why would their be a denial of healthcare?
Whether it's allowing something or not within that care, THAT IS UP TO THE DISCRETION IN THE SITUATION OF THAT LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE.
The opposing side is basically saying the decision should be already decided by default in most cases to "should be".
My stance is to leave it legally where it is with the legal authorities as to what "should" or "shouldn't be" or a "not now maybe later". Whatever, that's up to the legal guardians.
So relatively it's both "should be " and "shouldn't be" if someone is wishing to nail me down to which, do it with both scenarios.
"Nobody would deny baby of healthcare just because baby cant make informed decision."
What does this have to do with a person having to be informed to make an informed decision?
Starting to just throw anything out , out of desperation are you?
That statement shouldn't of even been made on account of the topic statement.
"Plus, he says that "guardian has to act in the best interest of that child". Since trans surgery desired by someone is almost always in the best interest of that someone, what more needs to be said?"
Well you have that right as a legal guardian if you are one to say what is in the best interest. You have no legal grounds or have not argued why you are justified in dictating how legal guardians should protect their children.
This is the problem with your position. You have not justified why anybody's parental decisions is any of your business as you can decide for them by default in "most cases".
"The topic does not deal with what is right now, but what should be."
Ok well get this. My position of WHAT SHOULD BE IS WHAT IT IS RIGHT NOW .
I rest my case .
Round 4
All my position has to be is opposed to the topic statement. You say it should be allowed period. I say it should be allowed based on the legal authorities, not it should be allowed period.
My opponent doesnt provide any explanation about why legal authorities are right in their decision, other than them being in some position of decision making.
The point of debate is to figure out what should be done. The point is not to "always agree with anyone who has power".
I have shown many studies which say that trans surgeries are beneficial.
My opponent has only responded by saying that whats beneficial doesnt matter unless someone with power agrees.
Let us see some more data about trans people. If you dont want to read entire text, just scroll to conclusions at the end.
"Children first begin to develop a sense of biological gender at around the age of 2 to 3 years.1 At this age, they are able to label pictures of boys and girls according to typical presentations of heteronormativity. At 4 years, boys understand that it is the possession of a penis that marks them out as biologically male and girls understand it is the lack of a penis that means they are biologically female. By this age, children have a sense of the stability of biological gender, an understanding that it remains constant with time. From this point up to the age of 6 or 7 years, their judgement of gender in pictures of clothed children is heavily influenced by appearance so that they label boys pictured in dresses as girls and boys with long hair as girls. By 7 years they recognise biological sex as constant and independent of external appearance.1
By the age of 7 years, therefore, children understand three different concepts related to sex/gender identity: biological sex, self-perceived gender identity and social gender identity. They understand that they and others are biologically male or female, that they and others have a sense of their own gender identity as male or female and that they and others, depending on their appearance and clothing, are usually perceived by others as male or female. As they develop into adolescence and adulthood, people recognise that, with the use of hormones and surgical interventions, some features of biological sex can be changed. Both self-perceived gender identity and social gender identity may also undergo change.
The great majority of young children develop a self-perceived gender identity consonant with their gender assigned at birth, but some, from the age of 3 or 4 years, develop a self-perceived gender identity which is other than that assigned at birth. This sense of another gender identity can be accompanied by a feeling of discomfort or gender dysphoria. There are many autobiographical examples of the first awareness of gender dysphoria. The best known is that written by Jan Morris, who lived as a highly successful male journalist under the name of James Morris until her mid-30s when, following treatment with hormones, she underwent a surgical reconstruction and thereafter lived as a woman.2 Jan Morris describes very clearly the onset of her gender dysphoria:2 ‘I was three or perhaps four years old when I realized I had been born into the wrong body and should really be a girl. I remember the moment well, and it is the earliest memory of my life’ (p. 1). Her sense of discomfort with her assigned gender at birth persisted throughout her childhood, adolescence and early adult life. She describes how, when in role as a young man, she used to pray ‘please God make me a girl’ (p. 39). Gender dysphoria persisted throughout her marriage and parenthood. It was only in her late 30s, after she had had gender reassignment surgery, that she felt at ease.
The majority of prepubertal girls and boys have a clear sense of their own gender identity as female or male. This is nearly always consistent with their gender assigned at birth; in some, like Jan Morris, it is not. In a study of adolescents who had been referred to a gender identity clinic in earlier childhood, Steensma et al were able to show that a high proportion of prepubertal children with gender dysphoria did not continue to show such dysphoria after puberty,3 a finding that had previously been reported by the same group.4 Further, children who had shown gender-atypical behaviour (see below) without intense gender dysphoria did not generally show gender dysphoria in adolescence. Those with gender dysphoria who had been assigned a female gender at birth were less likely to desist than those assigned a male gender. Those who persisted were much more likely to have a homosexual or bisexual orientation.
A sense of gender identity must be distinguished from the presence of gender-atypical behaviour, which may occur with or without gender dysphoria. Gender-atypical behaviour (boys behaving like girls and having interests generally regarded as feminine and vice versa) is not uncommon in the general population. In a total population study, using a standardised instrument, Golombok et al were able to identify 112 boys and 113 girls aged 3.5 years who showed gender-atypical behaviour to an extreme degree.5 This represented about 2.2% of the population studied (S. Golombok, personal communication, 5 Jan 2021). Especially for girls, there was considerable continuity between gender-atypical behaviours at 3.5 years and such behaviour at the age of 13 years. These investigators do not report whether any of the children in their study were referred for gender dysphoria. The prevalence of 2.2% for gender-atypical behaviour needs to be contrasted with the much less frequent prevalence of 1 per 6800 Dutch adolescents aged 12 to 18 years who requested medical help for gender dysphoria.6"
"Adolescence is a social construction, i.e. it is a phase of life defined by society.8 In Western society, it is regarded as beginning at the onset of biological puberty. Its end is not, however, defined biologically, but usually by a social criterion such as the age at which the individual develops significant autonomy. In practice, most psychologists, clinicians and members of the general public equate adolescence with the teen years, from 13 to 19, although many young people are well into biological puberty by 13 years and will have completed the biological changes of puberty well before 19 years. Recently, Sawyer and colleagues in an influential article have argued for an expanded and more inclusive definition of adolescence corresponding with the longer period of transition from childhood to adulthood now experienced by young people in Western society. They suggest that the period of 10 to 24 years is more consistent with this experience.9 It is of relevance that there is considerable variation in ages at onset and termination of biological puberty, some young people normally starting at 10 or 11 years old and others not completing puberty until their later teen years. Relatively recent neuroscientific studies have pointed to the fact that rapid biological changes occur in the brain during the teen years,10 but these are by no means specific to this phase of life.11
The general public regard various behaviours as characteristic of adolescence. These may be summarised as impulsiveness, a tendency to take risks, moodiness and fractious relationships with parents. The public image of adolescents accords with this view of ‘the typical adolescent’. It is certainly the case that some teenagers show these characteristics, but population studies suggest that they make up no more than about 10–15% of this age group,12 although they are certainly the most conspicuous. Another important and, in the context of this article, the most relevant feature of adolescence is thought to be self-questioning about identity. Young people of this age are seen as preoccupied with the question ‘Who am I?’, a question relating to all aspects of their identities, including their gender and sexuality. Such self-questioning is not experienced in intense form by most teenagers. The prevalence of ‘identity problems’ was found to be 14.3% in a group of 15- to 18-year-old American high school students13 and a similar prevalence of ‘identity distress’ was found in a study of Flemish adolescents and young people aged 14–30 years.14 The considerable increase in exposure of teenagers in the past 10 to 15 years to social media replete with references to gender identity would make it surprising if there had not been at least some increase of such self-questioning and confusion in this area."
"It is remarkable that most children who have been transgender from a young age reach adolescence without developing a higher-than-expected rate of significant mental health problems.17"
"With careful assessment and selection, a very small minority of young people prescribed puberty blockers (between 1.4 and 3.5%) change their minds and do not wish to proceed further.23"
"The aims of treatment are twofold:
- to explore with the child or young person with gender dysphoria the reasons for their discomfort with their gender assigned at birth and to consider alternative ways forward, including living in the role of their birth-assigned gender or pursuing medical intervention that will enable them to transition;
- in those who choose to live in their preferred transgender role, to start treatment, pausing for reflection before each step, first with puberty blockers, then with cross-sex hormones and finally with gender reassignment surgery to relieve gender dysphoria."
"Transgender youth are far more likely than their peers to think about suicide or attempt it"
So we see that trans surgeries that are desired by trans persons help them reduce their pain and make them less suicidal. Same applies to trans youth, who also have very high risk of being suicidal.
"My opponent doesnt provide any explanation about why legal authorities are right in their decision, other than them being in some position of decision making."
Legal guardians are right in WHAT decision? Why would I have an explanation about a decision you haven't even said they're supposed to be making that you broadly communicate here?
I don't have to argue what's right or wrong but just point out that legal authorities or guardians have that responsibility of deciding whatever they decide within the law in the best interest of the minor. My position is not about what makes any single decision right. So I never would have went into a specific decision on top of that for any LEGAL standpoint.
This shouldn't be difficult to understand. I'm just getting a very obtuse reception from you.
"The point of debate is to figure out what should be done. The point is not to "always agree with anyone who has power"."
It's already figured out by law. The same reason why we have consent laws. What should be done is decided by the legal authorities.
"I have shown many studies which say that trans surgeries are beneficial. "
Well leave those studies to the legal authorities to make their discretion. In other words, what should be done is finally whatever decision is made by those legal authorities.
It's not your decision to make what should be allowed over someone else's children.
You have no legal right to dictate that. What should be or shouldn't be is decided by those authorities.
To constantly say this , it's just redundant.
"My opponent has only responded by saying that whats beneficial doesnt matter unless someone with power agrees."
Then instead of just accepting what I've said over and over you strawman. Say things I've said that I haven't.
"Let us see some more data about trans people. If you dont want to read entire text, just scroll to conclusions at the end."
The opposing side just doesn't get what should be is ultimately decided by a parent, legal guardian and whatever the person has been reared with. So that gets everybody older than 10 years. What should be for them is still dictated by what they've been taught from their legal authorities. It's how they're able to make an informed decision. But for minors they are totally dependent on their legal authorities until they're completely cultivated in certain areas.
The opposing side never challenged me specifically about older individuals. This is because I believe they've been distracted in just looking at studies and research thinking that is by default the end all be all deciding once and for all that "most" situations should allow gender transitions for people 10 years and older.
No the END ALL BE ALL is still left up to the legal authorities discretion and their rearing thereof.
So the opposing side goes on basically filibustering with data. Doing that is not arguing, just another way of evading. They know this.
"So we see that trans surgeries that are desired by trans persons help them reduce their pain and make them less suicidal. Same applies to trans youth, who also have very high risk of being suicidal."
Good to know for the legal authorities to take into account as they SHOULD decide what should be allowed or not.
Round 5
My opponent is refusing to make argument for his position outside of appeal to power where "authority is right in its decision simply because its authority or because it is in position to make a decision". We can all agree that such argument speaks nothing about quality of the decision, but we are debating the quality.
My side is that they should decide to allow those surgeries.
My opponent didnt even pick a side, since he didnt make any arguments for opposing side.
That concludes this debate.
"My opponent didnt even pick a side, since he didnt make any arguments for opposing side."
I picked the side of the legal authorities but being that can't be refuted, my position is ignored for what I'd been arguing for round after round.
I bet I get agreement outside this debate. Some play the opposition's advocate so hard .
I agree that it would be probably wrong to give 3 year old a gender surgery.
So I am not arguing that.
But studies indicate that transition is extremely consistent and great majority of children continue with transition to the desired level.
So 10 year old should be allowed to have gender surgery if its his choice, since that improves quality of life.
->Some trans people start transition at 3 years old. They wear clothes, hair and make up that suit their identity. They do activities which in the past would have been considered inappropriate, such as born boys acting in a feminine way.
But surely there is a difference between a 3 year old with XY chromosomes wearing long hair and make up and that same 3 year old chopping off their dick.
If an XY chromosome person wants to wear long hair, dresses, and makeup, I don't like it, but no politician I know of wants to ban that. The issue is if that 3 year old should be allowed to get their dick chopped off. It's a hard no from me.
Its not minimum age. I am merely arguing that 10 or older should be allowed. The debate doesnt include those under 10 being allowed or not allowed.
I am not going to pretend that I know perfect minimum age.
Some trans people start transition at 3 years old. They wear clothes, hair and make up that suit their identity. They do activities which in the past would have been considered inappropriate, such as born boys acting in a feminine way.
Its a new thing, but all studies support trans children being allowed to transition. The only real point of disagreement is surgery.
So then why is your minimum age 10 years old? Why not 7? Why not 5?
Most children continue with transition, according to studies.
Reversable hormones/puberty blockers are different than getting your dick cut off.
It was a study done on over 8000 transgenders.
Now, of course, the question is does same apply to 10 year olds if it applies to 16 year olds.
One could say it does, since most 10 year olds dont regret hormone therapy or puberty blockers.
Its probably mostly about those 16 or older, but I will try to find more in another round.
The following quote you cited was: "Very few people who have gender-affirming surgery regret their decision. Research tracking the outcomes following gender affirmation surgeries shows that among people who opt for gender-affirming surgery, only 1% regret having the procedure.""
2 questions about this quote:
1. Is this a lifetime statistic or a statistic of what % regret the surugry after X years?
2. Is this a statistic that doesn't consider age or a statistic that only considers those that got gender surguies when they were at least 18, 21, or similar?
Yes, but my argument is about reduction of pain in the world, not about what is reversible. Well, I posted a round. If you are interested, give it a read.
Driving a car is reversible. You can stop driving pretty much at will. Once you get your tits chopped off, there is no going back.
I think 10 year old driving a car increases pain, where 10 year old getting gender surgery reduces pain.
Don't you think it takes more maturity to be able to get a gender surgery than to be able to drive a car?
No. Thats why I didnt make that the topic.
Do you think it's OK for a typical 10 year old to drive a car?
See if this position works for you
More importantly, the specific age kinda matters. I really dont wanna argue that 3 year olds should get gender surgeries. Its not the position I want to bother to defend.
10 years old and above could be allowed to get gender surgeries. That position makes a bit more sense.
I am thinking if I should defend that children should be allowed get gender surgeries or not.
Why didn't you change the debate title yet?
I think you are going to be hard pressed to find someone that wants to ban adults from getting gender surgeries. It's like finding someone that wants to ban wearing shorts in the wintertime. Most people would be scared of it, but they respect the liberty of those to wear shorts in the wintertime if they want too.
Not sure if I can defend "any age" position, but if that is the topic you are willing to debate, so be it.
Anybody of any age should be allowed to have therapy regarding their specific gender issue.
Sure.
I'd love to debate you on this topic but sadly I cannot due to it being a rated debate. Can you switch it?
It is done.
Have the debate title be, "Anyone at least the age of X should be allowed to get a gender surgery". X is any number you want.
Most people live past age 26.
Now, I cant exactly think of a more suitable topic. If we were just discussing age at which surgery should be allowed, it would be largely in my favor if I picked ages 18-22.
Lets say someone's position was that the minimum age to get a gender surgery if you want one is 26.
Do they want gender surgeries legal for adults in most cases or not?
If the age was 26, pretty much anyone that would have gotten their dick cut off at 18 will still do that at 26, so it's only a delay.
I think it's the normie position in the US that gender surgeries for adults should be legal in most cases.