Pronouns and References

[Muizer]

Fortunately the thread title now reflects the actual subject and saves us from mental gymnastics likely to cause injuries.

As Dave pointed out, transgenderism is a documented phenomenon. Up to 2% of people are not cis-gendered. That means it is not arbitrary or illogical to look for alternatives to "he" and "she". Nor would I say that people in this group don't deserve consideration, given that people in that group may find relief in not having their gender misrepresented.

On the other hand, there are those who feel society should accommodate for this by dropping all assumptions about the gender of strangers. Basing pronouns off of someone's name, physique, dress etc. is to be avoided, or at least worthy of an apology if one gets it wrong. Introductions should start with proclaiming your preferred pronouns, and so on. IMHO that doesn't make sense. Despite the incredible variety of human physique, our brains are extremely adept at instantly assessing people's sex. That, in combination with the fact that 98% of people are cis-gendered, mean it's ludicrous to complicate communication about strangers for fear of misgendering one in 50 times.

In other word, if someone tells you their preferred pronouns, use them. Otherwise, trust people's instincts and don't make a fuss when they get it wrong.

[chriscase]

Yes, seems eminently reasonable and certainly close enough to my practical experience. However, when I see people going through multiple “identities” and every week seems different than the last, I have to think we’ve sort of lost the point of it all. On top of that, when compliance with self-appointed arbiters of “the right way” has turned into what appears to be an ideological purity test, I am inclined to resist.

Don’t we have bigger fish to fry? Like stuff that actually matters? Call me whatever, it’s not me. There is no me. Really, who cares? When I used to care about this, I believed no one was purely “binary”. It’s just words. But now apparently I’m a reactionary because I think changing your pronoun on a weekly basis is silly.

[Søren]

Yes, seems eminently reasonable and certainly close enough to my practical experience. However, when I see people going through multiple “identities” and every week seems different than the last, I have to think we’ve sort of lost the point of it all. On top of that, when compliance with self-appointed arbiters of “the right way” has turned into what appears to be an ideological purity test, I am inclined to resist.

Don’t we have bigger fish to fry? Like stuff that actually matters? Call me whatever, it’s not me. There is no me. Really, who cares? When I used to care about this, I believed no one was purely “binary”. It’s just words. But now apparently I’m a reactionary because I think changing your pronoun on a weekly basis is silly.

Is this really a significant real-world phenomenon though, outside perhaps a handful on twitter? Virtually everyone would say that changing your pronouns on a weekly basis is evidence of silliness, deep confusion, or both. Happily, barely anyone actually does this, so it's insignificant compared to the relevant issue of trans people consistently identifying with a certain gender, and understandably expecting to be referred to as such.

[chriscase]

Perhaps my own experience is atypical then.

[PointOfViewGun]

I'd go with the usual assumptions in first order logic. Anywhere you see the phrase "there exists" or a mirror-image "E" the concept of existence is being used axiomatically, i.e. with an assumption that it's a valid property to assign (or not) to an object of consideration.

Not sure why I'm being accused of evasiveness here. What have I refused to answer?

How does any of this relate to gender identity? You are basically defying the very concept of language which operates under the assumption that you exists.

[basics]

The posts are evidence of our existence and our existence is made of two characteristics, one, if you have a penis you are male and two, if not, you are female. Without the coming together of the two lineage ceases.

[Muizer]

Yes, seems eminently reasonable and certainly close enough to my practical experience. However, when I see people going through multiple “identities” and every week seems different than the last, I have to think we’ve sort of lost the point of it all. On top of that, when compliance with self-appointed arbiters of “the right way” has turned into what appears to be an ideological purity test, I am inclined to resist.

Don’t we have bigger fish to fry? Like stuff that actually matters? Call me whatever, it’s not me. There is no me. Really, who cares? When I used to care about this, I believed no one was purely “binary”. It’s just words. But now apparently I’m a reactionary because I think changing your pronoun on a weekly basis is silly.

Like Soren I doubt it's that widespread. For most people gender identity is a pretty profound part of who they are and not something they'd switching back and forth on a whim. The tricky cases are children and adolescents who are basically discovering themselves and the world they live in. Actual confusion and insecurity are to be expected. Or course, so is whimsical and irresponsible behaviour. In both cases it's important to convey the message that it's something you and they should take seriously. That's also why I think we agree choice of pronoun should not be something completely one sided and unassailable. Abuse should never be assumed, but it's not entirely impossible. If people start using pronouns as fashion attributes, that's in fact harmful to actual non-cis gendered people.

[Dave Strider]

Yes, seems eminently reasonable and certainly close enough to my practical experience. However, when I see people going through multiple “identities” and every week seems different than the last, I have to think we’ve sort of lost the point of it all. On top of that, when compliance with self-appointed arbiters of “the right way” has turned into what appears to be an ideological purity test, I am inclined to resist.

Don’t we have bigger fish to fry? Like stuff that actually matters? Call me whatever, it’s not me. There is no me. Really, who cares? When I used to care about this, I believed no one was purely “binary”. It’s just words. But now apparently I’m a reactionary because I think changing your pronoun on a weekly basis is silly.

There are multiple explanations for why someone might change pronouns.

Firstly, and most simply, is that they are genderfluid. This is one of the larger categories of nonbinary. Some people feel that they vacillate between male and female (or masc and femme, or what have you) and as such feel more "he" on some days and more "she" on others. Oftentimes they are okay with both because they know nobody can reasonably read their mind and anticipate which they are at that exact moment, and are also open to "they".

Secondly, they could also just be trying to figure themselves out more thoroughly and experimenting. Not everyone is fortunate enough to know 100% who they are on the first try.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Don’t we have bigger fish to fry? Like stuff that actually matters? Call me whatever, it’s not me. There is no me. Really, who cares? When I used to care about this, I believed no one was purely “binary”. It’s just words. But now apparently I’m a reactionary because I think changing your pronoun on a weekly basis is silly.

Bear in mind we’re no longer dealing with 1-2% of the population either. There’s been a 17 fold increase in the number of children seeking to transition in recent years due to social and political reinforcement, even though 60-90% change their minds by adulthood. The reason we should care, though, is because this kind of top-down social and medical experimentation and conditioning on this scale, especially against children, is unprecedented. The impacts of the collective psychological and physical damage against so many young people is difficult to predict.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...197-8/fulltext

[Muizer]

Is that this letter?

The letter contends the increase in treatments will disproportionately increase 'regretted' cases. That rather points to an increased share of transgenders seeking treatment, thereby including less confident cases. From this assertion nothing can be concluded about a change in percentage of the population identifying as transgender.

[Lord Thesaurian]

It’s common knowledge that the number of people identifying as trans, especially among young people, is increasing. The authors cited the figure, in part to give an idea of the scale, and to directly dispute the 1% figure claimed by an official Lancet editorial. Are you disputing the dispute or are you implying the observation is misleading?

[Søren]

Do you have a publicly accessible source for 60-90% changing their mind in adulthood?

[Lord Thesaurian]

It’s from a 2016 review of several relevant studies.

http://www.sexologytoday.org/2016/01/do-trans-kids-stay-trans-when-they-grow_99.html

[Akar]

It's not 60-90% change their mind *in adulthood*, it's that 60-90% of gender fluid or transgender minors "change their mind" *by* adulthood. Given that as many as 40% would receive an immense benefit that would be otherwise impossible to achieve, while the other 60% do not experience any downsides from being given the ability to explore their gender identity, I find it hard to believe that any objective person would consider allowing minors to explore their sense of self and gender to be a bad thing.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Im not sure what the point of the above rhetorical attempts to detract from the source material is if we’re simply going to arrive back at my original post here. Asserting “this is fine and if you don’t think so you’re wrong” doesn’t make it so. I find it hard to believe that any objective person would consider allowing minors to take hormones/puberty blockers and demand everyone refer to them by a preferred gender in case they “might” be born in the “wrong body” to be a good thing.

[chilon]

Should be a simple and uncontroversial topic. Call people what they prefer to be called. It's basic human decency and respect. If a non-binary person wants to be called "they" then use "they". If a trans persons wants to use the other gendered pronoun then use it as they request. It's really just as simple as "Don't be an "

[Dave Strider]

Bear in mind we’re no longer dealing with 1-2% of the population either. There’s been a 17 fold increase in the number of children seeking to transition in recent years due to social and political reinforcement

This is normal, and to be expected even. The same thing happened with left-handedness around the turn of the 1900s. When you design society to be catered to a certain demographic (cis people/the right handed), those "in the closet" think there's something wrong with them, or are pressured externally by others, and try to adapt to the norm. But when you put it out there that "hey, being trans/left-handed is a thing that exists", then people will recognize, "hey, wait a minute, I'm trans/left-handed", and identify as that openly. It's not because they're being "pressured", it's that this generation has the opportunity to discover things about themselves that previous generations were cowed out of acknowledging because of the pressures of their time.

I find it hard to believe that any objective person would consider allowing minors to take hormones/puberty blockers and demand everyone refer to them by a preferred gender in case they “might” be born in the “wrong body” to be a good thing.

Trans youth are almost never prescribed hormones precisely because they are minors. Puberty blockers are the far more common prescription, and this isn't a decision made willy-nilly: it involves years of monitoring by the youth themselves, their parents, and their medical providers and caretakers, is able to be cancelled at any time, and has no long term impacts on the youth's development. Puberty blockers don't change anything about the body, they simply are a shield against the youth's own natural hormone production. If they change their mind, they can go off the blockers and will have a completely normal puberty, delayed by however long they've been on the blockers. But it doesn't permanently affect anything like hormones have the potential to do.

The reason puberty blockers are used is because they offset the worst mental health symptoms of gender dysphoria, which can be genuinely traumatizing for trans people if left untreated. You can raise a moral panic about puberty blockers all you like, but if they stop a depressed teenager from killing themselves to escape mental agony, I'm all for them.

[Lord Thesaurian]

This is normal, and to be expected even. The same thing happened with left-handedness around the turn of the 1900s. When you design society to be catered to a certain demographic (cis people/the right handed), those "in the closet" think there's something wrong with them, or are pressured externally by others, and try to adapt to the norm. But when you put it out there that "hey, being trans/left-handed is a thing that exists", then people will recognize, "hey, wait a minute, I'm trans/left-handed", and identify as that openly. It's not because they're being "pressured", it's that this generation has the opportunity to discover things about themselves that previous generations were cowed out of acknowledging because of the pressures of their time.

We can all speculate that gazillions of people are “born in the wrong body” all the time and were repressed because reasons, but there’s as much empirical basis for asserting trans identity without any medical diagnosis as there is for transracialism, for example. Absurdity breeds absurdity. I guess that’s the point of the OP.

Trans youth are almost never prescribed hormones precisely because they are minors. Puberty blockers are the far more common prescription, and this isn't a decision made willy-nilly: it involves years of monitoring by the youth themselves, their parents, and their medical providers and caretakers, is able to be cancelled at any time, and has no long term impacts on the youth's development. Puberty blockers don't change anything about the body, they simply are a shield against the youth's own natural hormone production. If they change their mind, they can go off the blockers and will have a completely normal puberty, delayed by however long they've been on the blockers. But it doesn't permanently affect anything like hormones have the potential to do.

The reason puberty blockers are used is because they offset the worst mental health symptoms of gender dysphoria, which can be genuinely traumatizing for trans people if left untreated. You can raise a moral panic about puberty blockers all you like, but if they stop a depressed teenager from killing themselves to escape mental agony, I'm all for them.

This is false. The World Professional Association for Transgender Health recommends hormone therapy can begin at 14 and surgery at 15, while it’s not uncommon for related studies on puberty blockers to feature kids as young as 10-12. And even if they didn’t, more and more surgeons are willing to employ pedophile logic to justify it - and even consider it virtuous. Even if we were only looking at puberty blockers, is it any wonder drugs used for chemical castration likely wrecks kids’ normal development?

In addition to the reasons to suspec t that puberty suppression may have side effects on physiological and psychological development, the evidence that something like normal puberty will resume for these patients after puberty-suppressing drugs are removed is very weak. This is because there are virtually no published reports, even case studies, of adolescents withdrawing from puberty-suppressing drugs and then resuming the normal pubertal development typical for their sex. Rather than resuming biologically normal puberty, these adolescents generally go from suppressed puberty to medically conditioned cross-sex puberty, when they are administered cross-sex hormones at approximately age 16. During this time, as per the Dutch protocol, puberty-suppressing GnRH analogues continue to be administered to prevent the initiation of gonadarche; the sex hormones that are normally secreted by the maturing gonads are not produced, and physicians administer sex hormones normally produced by the gonads of the opposite sex. This means that adolescents undergoing cross-sex hormone treatment circumvent the most fundamental form of sexual maturation — the maturation of their reproductive organs. Patients undergoing sex reassignment discontinue GnRH treatment after having their gonads removed, since the secretion of sex hormones that the treatment is ultimately intended to prevent will no longer be possible.

https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publi.../growing-pains

Surgeons are focusing more attention to gender reassignment surgeries in minors.29 For the more complex surgery of vaginoplasty, over half of the surgeons practicing in this area have performed vaginoplasty on an indi- vidual under age 18.30 Nearly all surgeons relied on the term “maturity” rather than chronological age to determine patients’ readiness for the procedure.31 Only one third of the surgeons thought that age 18 was an appropriate criterion.32 Concerning the less controversial chest surgery, one study simply noted that patients who were 16 or older could be con- sidered for virilizing mammoplasty.33 The authors of this study, Laura Edwards-Leeper, Ph.D., and Norman Spack, MD, are co-founders of the Gender Management Service of the Boston Children’s Hospital. The clinic afforded them the experience of treating hundreds of dysphoric children and adolescents, and their expertise is acknowledged in the field.34

https://transhealthproject.org/docum...ure_review.pdf

Emotional distress due to underlying psychological issues that should be treated with something besides chemical castration drugs and plastic surgery does not justify irreversible physical damage that can often lead to lifelong medical complications, along with increased risk of heart attack/stroke.

There is growing acknowledgment worldwide that the practice of providing gender-affirming care for youth is far from settled science.9 A systematic review by UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence found that in youth with gender dysphoria there was “little change with GnRH analogues from baseline to follow-up” in gender dysphoria, mental health, body image, and psychosocial impact. The study concluded that the reported psychological improvements are “either of questionable clinical value, or the studies themselves are not reliable and changes could be due to confounding, bias or chance”

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...235-2/fulltext

We believe that using the outdated statistic that 1% of people who transition will regret their decision is highly irresponsible, and lacks the rigour for which the Lancet group of journals is known. This 1% refers primarily to studies of adults who transitioned in an era when medical transition was only taken under strict protocol.2 We now find ourselves in a markedly different era, characterised by a 1727% rise in the numbers of children seeking to transition,3 and a gender-affirmative approach, which has been adopted almost universally, making the proffered 1% statistic anachronistic.4 We do not believe puberty blockers are a safe and appropriate option, as supported by a blog by Carl Heneghan and Tom Jefferson,5 especially given that the use of this highly experimental treatment path is being reconsidered by progressive countries in Europe. The Karolinska Institute in Sweden, long considered gold-standard in providing transgender health care, no longer uses puberty blockers;6 nor does Finland promote their use.7 Additionally, a judicial review in the UK found puberty blockers to be an inappropriate option for most children younger than 16 years.8

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...197-8/fulltext

Transgender individuals who undergo gender-affirming medical or surgical therapies are at risk for infertility. Suppression of puberty with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist analogs (GnRHa) in the pediatric transgender patient can pause the maturation of germ cells, and thus, affect fertility potential. Testosterone therapy in transgender men can suppress ovulation and alter ovarian histology, while estrogen therapy in transgender women can lead to impaired spermatogenesis and testicular atrophy. The effect of hormone therapy on fertility is potentially reversible, but the extent is unclear.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31380227/

Transitioned individuals are far more likely than average to die by suicide, so the premise that “if we don’t drug and maim kids and tell them they might be born in the wrong body they will kill themselves” is as ludicrous as it sounds.

Persons with transsexualism, after sex reassignment, have considerably higher risks for mortality, suicidal behaviour, and psychiatric morbidity than the general population. Our findings suggest that sex reassignment, although alleviating gender dysphoria, may not suffice as treatment for transsexualism, and should inspire improved psychiatric and somatic care after sex reassignment for this patient group.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ar...l.pone.0016885

[Dave Strider]

We can all speculate that gazillions of people are “born in the wrong body” all the time and were repressed because reasons, but there’s as much empirical basis for asserting trans identity without any medical diagnosis as there is for transracialism, for example. Absurdity breeds absurdity. I guess that’s the point of the OP.

Again, there is far more basis for trans identity than transracial identity. Transness is a concept which is hardly unique to our society or our point in history. Cultures across the world dating back hundreds and even thousands of years recognize varying gender expression and genders which do not fit into the modern binary of male man and female woman. Native American culture has Two Spirit. The Indian subcontinent has the Hijra. Ancient Egypt had the Sekhet. There are many more. Not to mention that even the idea of two biological sexes is untrue. Sex is bimodal, not binary. Intersex people exist. People who have other chromosomes than XX or XY exist. There's mountains of evidence of this stuff.

Transracialism does not have the same level of evidence, because there is no such thing as biological race. Race is a social construct. There are no hard limits on race. There are no clear boundaries on race. There are not different modes of race as there are for gender or sex. If we're being realistic here, there is no such thing as "being white", "being black", "being asian", because these are arbitrary definitions which have been crafted from whole cloth for geopolitical reasons within the past 500 years. So of course there isn't any basis for "transitioning" races, because there is no way to scientifically measure race, it doesn't exist.

This is false. The World Professional Association for Transgender Health recommends hormone therapy can begin at 14 and surgery at 15, while it’s not uncommon for related studies on puberty blockers to feature kids as young as 10-12. And even if they didn’t, more and more surgeons are willing to employ pedophile logic to justify it - and even consider it virtuous. Even if we were only looking at puberty blockers, is it any wonder drugs used for chemical castration likely wrecks kids’ normal development?

Saying that someone is of a sound state of mind to know their own needs and their own identity is not "pedophile logic". The people who so often tout this claim risk betraying their own opinion that trans people are little more than sexual objects. Being trans has nothing to do with sexuality, sexual activity, or physical intimacy. It is about a person's relationship with themselves and their own body. Again, consider the analogy I mentioned of being left-handed. Sure, you wouldn't say that a 15 year old is old or developed enough to be (for example) sent to war, that would be horrifically traumatizing to their developing mind. But you could absolutely trust a 15 year old to know if they're right-handed or left-handed, because it's so core to their being, the way they navigate and understand both their own existence as well as the world around them, it's intuitive, it's instinctual. Gender is the same way. You confidently know who you are. I confidently know who I am. I am confident that we both understood this about as soon as we were capable of walking and talking, and certainly by the time we were going through puberty. Similarly, trans people are confidently aware of who and what they are by that age. As are other LGBT people. I myself am bisexual, and I know that now, and I had my suspicions as far back as when I was 13-14.

Turning to the second half of your argument: first of all, puberty blockers are not the ones used for chemical castration, those are hormones. Puberty blockers, as your quotes mention, have far less severe lasting effects on only some of the trans youth who end up being treated with them. The most common form of puberty blockers, GnRH agonists, which your quotes mention, weren't invented to treat gender dysphoria, but to treat hormone-fueled forms of cancer, such as prostate cancer in males and breast cancer in females. This was their primary purpose for many years, and as such they are rigorously scientifically tested to ensure they are safe and well regulated. It was pure good luck that they also wound up being treatments for gender dysphoria. If we're willing to use them for life-saving cancer treatment at the possible expense of some fertility issues for some youth, then why should we balk at the idea of similarly live-saving treatment for gender dysphoria with the same low chance risks? Or are you against treating children suffering from those forms of cancer as well, because to employ such medical techniques on them is "pedophile logic"?

Regarding the quotes you provided: after reading through them, I can see the concerns you raise. There is disagreement among studies and there is further research to be done, I absolutely agree with you. But where I think we differ in opinion, if I understand you correctly, is that your argument seems to be "there isn't a conclusive answer, therefore we should stop doing it". My position is, "there isn't a conclusive answer, therefore we should do more research". Yes, there are evidently some health concerns relating to puberty blockers that the articles you posted raise, and I will even admit that evidently surgery for trans youth seems to be somewhat more common than I understood it to be. But again, this is why medical procedures exist. As I mentioned, these decisions are not made willy-nilly. They come about as the result of years-long medical observation, repeated confirmation, and working with the youth in question over a long period of time to ensure that it's not just a "phase". If someone opts to initiate puberty blockers, hormone therapy, or even go as far as gender affirming surgery, I trust their judgment. Yes, including if they're a teenager. Just as I would trust a teenager to want to have life saving surgery if they were shot and needed to have a bullet pulled out of them, rather than making them wait and endure agony until their 18th birthday because they "aren't ready for that kind of decision yet". Just as I would trust a teenager to know they're left or right handed. And while I'm thinking of it, just as I'd trust a teenager to know how to drive competently, because we start them off on that when they're 15 here in the States.

Emotional distress due to underlying psychological issues that should be treated with something besides chemical castration drugs and plastic surgery does not justify irreversible physical damage that can often lead to lifelong medical complications, along with increased risk of heart attack/stroke.

That's not your decision to make.

Transitioned individuals are far more likely than average to die by suicide, so the premise that “if we don’t drug and maim kids and tell them they might be born in the wrong body they will kill themselves” is as ludicrous as it sounds.

It's almost as if people get depressed when they're targeted with rape, murder, moral panic, slander from the highest pulpits of political power, targeted discriminatory legislation, fearmongering, and gaslighting from all angles of their lives.
It's almost as if our society is directly and consistently antagonistic toward trans people to the point that they fear for their lives and often lose hope that their lives will get better.
It's almost as if ignorant clowns view them with disgust and contempt and make no bones about doing so. That the moment they try to better life for themselves and for people like them, people call them pedophiles, groomers, and perverts.

But sure, it's transitioning that makes them commit suicide. Couldn't possibly be the fact that they're stigmatized and treated like dirt.

Meanwhile, when trans people are treated with love and acceptance rather than all the things listed above, their rate of suicide DECREASES. And water is wet, too!

[Lord Thesaurian]

Again, there is far more basis for trans identity than transracial identity. Transness is a concept which is hardly unique to our society or our point in history. Cultures across the world dating back hundreds and even thousands of years recognize varying gender expression and genders which do not fit into the modern binary of male man and female woman. Native American culture has Two Spirit. The Indian subcontinent has the Hijra. Ancient Egypt had the Sekhet. There are many more. Not to mention that even the idea of two biological sexes is untrue. Sex is bimodal, not binary. Intersex people exist. People who have other chromosomes than XX or XY exist. There's mountains of evidence of this stuff.

Transracialism does not have the same level of evidence, because there is no such thing as biological race. Race is a social construct. There are no hard limits on race. There are no clear boundaries on race. There are not different modes of race as there are for gender or sex. If we're being realistic here, there is no such thing as "being white", "being black", "being asian", because these are arbitrary definitions which have been crafted from whole cloth for geopolitical reasons within the past 500 years. So of course there isn't any basis for "transitioning" races, because there is no way to scientifically measure race, it doesn't exist.

Your position is based on a premise of absolute, unassailable personal autonomy over identity, so it doesn’t make sense to turn around and dismiss that premise based on biology contrasted with the social constructs around race, while also appealing to social constructs allegedly similar to transgenderism across cultures as a justification. Intersex is a group of conditions in which there is a discrepancy between the external genitals and the internal genitals, and is not a justification nor explanation of transgenderism, if the latter is a matter of personal identity. The objection on the basis of biology was addressed in the source material.

In any case, it is not clear how one can affirm that it is possible to feel like a member of another sex but deny it is possible to feel like a member of another race. How might one hold such a position? One way would be to suggest that unlike race, sex is biologically based, and determines the gender with which we psychologically identify.

This view problematically implies that we must settle the debate over the biological versus social basis of sex-gender identity before we can know for certain whether transgenderism is a “real” phenomenon, and therefore acceptable. Not only is such a basis widely disputed, but it would be decidedly unjust for the acceptance of trans individuals to turn on such knowledge.

…the most important being, such an objection invalidates the premise that the validity of transgender identity is an entirely personal decision.

Saying that someone is of a sound state of mind to know their own needs and their own identity is not "pedophile logic". The people who so often tout this claim risk betraying their own opinion that trans people are little more than sexual objects. Being trans has nothing to do with sexuality, sexual activity, or physical intimacy. It is about a person's relationship with themselves and their own body. Again, consider the analogy I mentioned of being left-handed. Sure, you wouldn't say that a 15 year old is old or developed enough to be (for example) sent to war, that would be horrifically traumatizing to their developing mind. But you could absolutely trust a 15 year old to know if they're right-handed or left-handed, because it's so core to their being, the way they navigate and understand both their own existence as well as the world around them, it's intuitive, it's instinctual. Gender is the same way. You confidently know who you are. I confidently know who I am. I am confident that we both understood this about as soon as we were capable of walking and talking, and certainly by the time we were going through puberty. Similarly, trans people are confidently aware of who and what they are by that age. As are other LGBT people. I myself am bisexual, and I know that now, and I had my suspicions as far back as when I was 13-14.

I’m not sure how the above pertains to what it responds to, or to the earlier claim that stuff like hormone treatments/surgery aren’t performed on minors. While such a defense suggests an understanding this shouldn’t be done to kids, it is, and it’s justified by the belief these kids are “mature” and, as one relevant medical survey put it, “age is just a number.” Acknowledging this as cliche pedophile logic only serves to highlight the same sort of reason your initial reaction was to deny this is being done to kids.

Turning to the second half of your argument: first of all, puberty blockers are not the ones used for chemical castration, those are hormones. Puberty blockers, as your quotes mention, have far less severe lasting effects on only some of the trans youth who end up being treated with them. The most common form of puberty blockers, GnRH agonists, which your quotes mention, weren't invented to treat gender dysphoria, but to treat hormone-fueled forms of cancer, such as prostate cancer in males and breast cancer in females. This was their primary purpose for many years, and as such they are rigorously scientifically tested to ensure they are safe and well regulated. It was pure good luck that they also wound up being treatments for gender dysphoria. If we're willing to use them for life-saving cancer treatment at the possible expense of some fertility issues for some youth, then why should we balk at the idea of similarly live-saving treatment for gender dysphoria with the same low chance risks? Or are you against treating children suffering from those forms of cancer as well, because to employ such medical techniques on them is "pedophile logic"?

Not true though. Lupron is one of the most common puberty blockers given to kids and is used for chemical castration. So I pointed out it’s no wonder drugs used for chemical castration likely wreck kids’ normal development.

It's almost as if people get depressed when they're targeted with rape, murder, moral panic, slander from the highest pulpits of political power, targeted discriminatory legislation, fearmongering, and gaslighting from all angles of their lives.
It's almost as if our society is directly and consistently antagonistic toward trans people to the point that they fear for their lives and often lose hope that their lives will get better.
It's almost as if ignorant clowns view them with disgust and contempt and make no bones about doing so. That the moment they try to better life for themselves and for people like them, people call them pedophiles, groomers, and perverts.

But sure, it's transitioning that makes them commit suicide.

It’s necessary to point out transitioned individuals are far more likely than average to die by suicide given the claim stuff like chemical castration drugs prevents it.

But where I think we differ in opinion, if I understand you correctly, is that your argument seems to be "there isn't a conclusive answer, therefore we should stop doing it". My position is, "there isn't a conclusive answer, therefore we should do more research".

I would say my position is “the evidence says this is harmful therefore we should stop doing it” which by extension rebukes the premise that encouraging harm with the pronoun nonsense and related, obligatory fanfare is somehow virtuous. As a society, we understand kids lack the agency to do something as mundane as have a beer or smoke a cigarette, or as serious as joining the military. Yet when it comes to gender, chemical castration drugs and getting their bodies carved up, hostile skepticism is dismissed as bigotry. And as the OP seems to address, the rationale for doing so is absurd.