>>23957
>if this were completely true (not saying it isn't partly) then you wouldn't be also seeing an increase in the detrans community and ex-trans people telling stories about how they were basically tricked by others into thinking it was a solution to their temporary typical teenage problems

The thing is: We have similar reports in the gay community - tune into any evangelical pastor's show for long enough and eventually you'll hear about some "ex-gay" convertee.  And homossexuality is something we have an even deeper understanding of the biological basis than transgenderism.

So, tl;dr: People don't know themselves half as well as they wish they did, and when societal and religious pressure enters the mix, things get messy.

Why do you take those Ex-trans people at their word? If we put all scientific evidence aside and look just at the story, It's equally as likely that they're still trans but in denial/self-suppression.

But one of those interpretations has scientific backing, and the other doesn't, you know?

>false equivalency. sorry anon.

Again: Not how false equivalence works. There is no equivalence being drawn, there is an analogy, and the analogy is perfectly valid.

>>23985
>I understand the stigma argument, but that does not account for the fact that in the case of teenage girls the trend is that entire friend groups simultaneously realize that they're trans.

This sounds like you reaching for stuff that isn't there, anon.

>Left-handedness can be diagnosed and empirically proven using MRI brain scans.

There are also objective criteria for the diagnosing of gender dysphoria. It's not as straight-forward as "diagnosing" someone with left-handedness, but It isn't merely "do you feel like a woman?" either; there are "symptoms" to it and signs a doctor will look for during the anamnesis proccess.

>but the point is that nobody's actually using MRIs to diagnose trans people.

I mean, sure - mostly because the literature basis for that isn't there yet, the field is new. But the world isn't divided between "MRI Scans" and "Bullshit without concrete basis". There's a whole gambit of methods out there.

>If you're so convinced that the sudden sharp rise in young people claiming to be trans and its demographic disparity can be simply explained away by saying that they're more willing to come forward due to less persecution

And better understanding of the condition. Never forget that - it's why Autism cases seem on the rise for example. Exact same phenomena: There's nothing causing autism, it's just that behavior that would be excuses as just being quirky 60 years ago are now understood to be part of the spectrum. Transgenderism is similar.

> would it really do any harm to trans people if the requirements for hormone therapy, breast removal, and genital surgery (especially in the case of minors) were held to a more rigorous medical standard?

I'm somewhat with you on that front, although I, as a cis dude, also recognize I'm not the person that should be dictating how trans people should be perceived or treated as.

But I will play devil's advocate because I have researched a bit about it, and try to answer your question from that perspective:

First, using solely medical criteria to determine if someone is trans or not does have some sets of problems when we are dealing with a subject that is, ultimately, a matter of identity. It is a bit murky to say someone isn't valid just because they don't adhere to the textbook definition of gender dysphoria - a definition that does change constantly because, as I said, we're still studying about it. Taking too hardline of an approach torwards purely medical classification risks leaving people who are in the fringes of this classification without support/treatment now. Like maybe someone is juuuust barely "not gender dysphoric enough" under today's understanding of the issue to not receive the hormones, therapy and surgery they need if your proposal was in effect, and 20 years into the future we find out that oops, they did totally fit the bill we just didn't understand yet. Well, that means we as a society failed that person.

And the push for early treatment is due to one particularly bothersome fact: The earlier we start, the better the outcome tends to be for the person. Especially if the person in question manages to go through puberty as their identified gender, the impact on mental health tends to be tremendous. Also, people overhype a lot how irreversible treatment tends to be; hormonal blockers are perfectly reversible, for example. (Surgery, of course, not so much so).

But you're not wrong that diagnosing gender dysphoria in children is a lot harder, and care needs to be exercised.

If you're not being disingenuous and actually interested in a different perspective, which is what I'm assuming and have been using as the basis for this message, I genuinely suggest you consume content made by and for trans people. Always a great way to understand a perspective different from yours. I particularly recommend ContraPoints' videos as they are very well-produced and she's not afraid to explore tough questions in ways that would not be approved by the traditional left.

Anyways, will not be replying anymore to not derail the thread further, let's all enjoy the tickling of femboys.