Hector Martin

That I know of, only online, and they weren't particularly impressive. But I thought you were relying on science here, not anecdotes. Anyway, "forcing" isn't a great word for what comes naturally without external force being applied.

Harm by inaction is not more excusable than harm by action, especially not when the argument here is explicitly about *restricting access to action against the will of the affected person*. That's just as bad as harm by action.

I'm relying on science, but "letting a flighty eleven-year-old decide what sex" is not a scientific argument, and to that argument I'm asking you if you know any trans people who had to go through that stuff in that situation, which it seems you don't.

It's an instance of what has sometimes happened. If you want to object to it as atypical, fair enough, though I might ask for evidence of that. Anyway, I answered your uncomfortable question, so how about if you answer mine: have you validated any of the science here?

Yes, and every single article I can find states that puberty blockers have no permanent effect on fertility. *HRT* does, which is why you use puberty blockers until the person has had plenty of time to evaluate whether they want to transition or not. Got evidence to the contrary?

No, though it does seem surprising. How long can kids stay on puberty blockers and have that still apply? (Perhaps a limit isn't known, but the studies must all have ended at some point.)

Blockers only started being under fire when they started using them for this. They had been used for early puberty for decades before that. They don't make you sterile because they stop the signals that cause hormones to be made in the body, they're not sex hormones themselves

Thanks. I nevertheless wonder how much you can postpone development and still have all the pieces work together correctly. As for the controversy, compare to human growth hormone: nobody objects to giving it to kids deficient in it, but other uses are attacked.