Dylan Mulvaney

[TexasTiger 13,006]

2 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

Ichy, HE describes HIMSELF with those pronouns now.

Link?

[DKW 86 7,440]

6 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

Ichy, HE describes HIMSELF with those pronouns now.

 

3 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Link?

My apologies. Apparently, she was being insulted by several people that were misquoting her.

https://www.imdb.com/news/ni64052507/

[cbo 7,917]

On 5/16/2023 at 6:24 AM, TitanTiger said:

Under current law in various states, minors as young as 15 can get gender affirming surgery, in some cases without parental consent.  This is currently the law in Oregon for instance.

Even under current Oregon law, gender-affirming care is treated as broadly medically necessary. For people 15 and older, a parent's permission is not needed. Those 14 and younger do require permission, and HB 2002 does not change that.

The bill also explicitly states that voluntary sterilization does not qualify as reproductive care for minors under 15 years of age, meaning people 14 and under will not be able to seek it on their own.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/heres-what-the-oregon-bill-on-abortion-gender-affirming-care-would-actually-change/ar-AA1b1NIU

 

From the bill itself:

A minor 15 years of age or older may give consent, without the consent of a parent or guardian of the minor, to: (a) Hospital care, medical or surgical diagnosis or treatment by a physician licensed by the Oregon Medical Board or a naturopathic physician licensed under ORS chapter 685, and dental or surgical diagnosis or treatment by a dentist licensed by the Oregon Board of Dentistry.

This includes transgender interventions:

SECTION 24. (1) As used in this section, “gender-affirming treatment” means a procedure, service, drug, device or product that a physical or behavioral health care provider prescribes to treat an individual for incongruence between the individual’s gender identity and the individual’s sex assignment at birth…

Can we please stop acting like people raising this concern are being crazy or unreasonable, as if that's some sort of gotcha trump card? This stuff is being pushed by transgender activists and it's being allowed or the laws relaxed in various states.  Oregon is just the latest.

 

No, it's because it matters.  And because what a fully grown adult does with themselves is one thing.  I may not think it's good, wise, or moral but they are free to do such things.  But minor children are not emotionally, mentally, or psychologically mature and developed enough to be having such things done to or for them.  We ought to at least be able to agree on such bright line areas, but increasingly I find that such an assumption isn't true and it's bewildering and frankly frightening.  I cannot understand functioning adults who advocate for such things or shrug and go along with them in the name of tolerance and "caring."

If you don't like to talk about it, fine.  Don't.  But we're going to discuss it and other collateral damage that comes from such views because greatly they affect other people besides the individual doing this to themselves - whether it be in areas of women's rights and the privacy and safety of women and girls, women's and girls sports, etc...or in the case of minors - it's being done (or being proposed as legal and permissible) to people who do not possess the necessary mental and psychological development to comprehend the lasting consequences of going down this road.

The fact that it is legal in Oregon does not prove that genital surgeries on minors are actually happening, outside a few fringe cases. And the laws are becoming more strict in most states, not relaxing. States are outlawing puberty blockers and testosterone treatments right and left, against the advice of all respectable medical associations. 

You cannot provide any evidence of these surgeries because it does not exist. There are probably as many posts on this board decrying genital surgeries on minors as there are actual cases. 

And that's my issue. The outrage is no where near equivalent to reality. The surgeries aren't happening and only fringe groups support genital surgery on minors. Yet Republican leaders use "mutilating children" as a rallying cry against their opponents. They know this will get votes because most people don't research the issue any further than that. They hear "the Dem's are mutilating children" and say, "I'm against that!" It leads to misinformed opinions, unnecessary legislation, and transphobia. 

We both know the average voter (on both sides) is not as intelligent or informed as you are. This is why it's so disappointing when people like you keep banging this drum. 

 

[PUB78 1,362]

Food for thought.

https://wng.org/opinions/the-tragedy-of-dylan-mulvaney-1684236850?mkt_tok=NzEwLVFSUi0yMDkAAAGLxMCPfPnLqlRkY4gWrj3__Gq7-w42jVBwUAvjgHKMOlxgC8y0nZF0buv3LxdxMMh358G1ocqjT5dNJ5jfozdN7LrvMR8gvEZiMQWChuiXOVgA

[TitanTiger 20,510]

45 minutes ago, cbo said:

The fact that it is legal in Oregon does not prove that genital surgeries on minors are actually happening, outside a few fringe cases.

It shouldn't be happening at all.  This tactic of "oh it's so rare (right this minute) you're overreacting" is tiresome.

 

45 minutes ago, cbo said:

And the laws are becoming more strict in most states, not relaxing. States are outlawing puberty blockers and testosterone treatments right and left, against the advice of all respectable medical associations. 

The laws are getting stricter in conservative states, more lax in liberal states.  Multiple "blue" states are or are starting to enact laws allowing a minor to be brought to their state for gender-affirming care, including puberty blocker and hormone treatments (and in Oregon's case at least, surgeries) without parental consent, or the consent of only one parent.

And TexasTiger has amply demonstrated that "all respectable medical associations" are not in alignment on this "advice."

 

45 minutes ago, cbo said:

And that's my issue. The outrage is no where near equivalent to reality. The surgeries aren't happening and only fringe groups support genital surgery on minors. Yet Republican leaders use "mutilating children" as a rallying cry against their opponents. They know this will get votes because most people don't research the issue any further than that. They hear "the Dem's are mutilating children" and say, "I'm against that!" It leads to misinformed opinions, unnecessary legislation, and transphobia. 

We both know the average voter (on both sides) is not as intelligent or informed as you are. This is why it's so disappointing when people like you keep banging this drum.

The progression:

"It's not even happening."

"It's only happening in extremely rare instances."

"It's only happening when experts say it's necessary."

"Actually, this is a good thing."

"It's happening and it should happen.  Deal with it, bigot."

I've seen this film before, and I didn't like the ending ($1 to Taylor Swift and Bon Iver).

 

We're not waiting around for this to become accepted.

[homersapien 11,440]

On 5/17/2023 at 4:07 PM, TitanTiger said:

It shouldn't be happening at all.  This tactic of "oh it's so rare (right this minute) you're overreacting" is tiresome.

 

The laws are getting stricter in conservative states, more lax in liberal states.  Multiple "blue" states are or are starting to enact laws allowing a minor to be brought to their state for gender-affirming care, including puberty blocker and hormone treatments (and in Oregon's case at least, surgeries) without parental consent, or the consent of only one parent.

And TexasTiger has amply demonstrated that "all respectable medical associations" are not in alignment on this "advice."

 

The progression:

"It's not even happening."

"It's only happening in extremely rare instances."

"It's only happening when experts say it's necessary."

"Actually, this is a good thing."

"It's happening and it should happen.  Deal with it, bigot."

I've seen this film before, and I didn't like the ending ($1 to Taylor Swift and Bon Iver).

 

We're not waiting around for this to become accepted.

As opposed to:  Read this anecdote.  And how about this one?

Therefore, on the basis of anecdotal "evidence" - which isn't evidence at all - we need to legislate against care for transsexuals, regardless of the patient needs - along with their parents desires  - as well as the opinions of  medical professionals.  We state legislatures know better than all of them.  We don't need no stinkin' data. 

"Small government" conservatism my ass.

And your last sentence reveals your true motivation.  You don't approve of transsexuals, period.

And speaking of "progressions" this reminds me of the progression -  in my lifetime - of how society treated homosexuality.

Edited May 21, 2023 by homersapien

[cbo 7,917]

9 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

It shouldn't be happening at all.  This tactic of "oh it's so rare (right this minute) you're overreacting" is tiresome.

 

The laws are getting stricter in conservative states, more lax in liberal states.  Multiple "blue" states are or are starting to enact laws allowing a minor to be brought to their state for gender-affirming care, including puberty blocker and hormone treatments (and in Oregon's case at least, surgeries) without parental consent, or the consent of only one parent.

And TexasTiger has amply demonstrated that "all respectable medical associations" are not in alignment on this "advice."

 

The progression:

"It's not even happening."

"It's only happening in extremely rare instances."

"It's only happening when experts say it's necessary."

"Actually, this is a good thing."

"It's happening and it should happen.  Deal with it, bigot."

I've seen this film before, and I didn't like the ending ($1 to Taylor Swift and Bon Iver).

 

We're not waiting around for this to become accepted.

The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the Endocrine Society, the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association disagree with you and TexasTiger. They have determined gender affirming care for minors is medically necessary and the benefits outweigh the risks. They have provided reasonable guidelines for care that do not include genital surgery. 

But as long as we are predicting the future, are you equally concerned about the precedent set by one party enacting legislation that prohibits patients, physicians, and parents from making medical decisions?

It's already happening with abortion too, so there is more evidence for concern here. How might that progress? Would you want Democratic lawmakers making decisions for you and your family that differ from those of the accepted medical community?

[cbo 7,917]

50 minutes ago, PUB78 said:

Food for thought.

https://wng.org/opinions/the-tragedy-of-dylan-mulvaney-1684236850?mkt_tok=NzEwLVFSUi0yMDkAAAGLxMCPfPnLqlRkY4gWrj3__Gq7-w42jVBwUAvjgHKMOlxgC8y0nZF0buv3LxdxMMh358G1ocqjT5dNJ5jfozdN7LrvMR8gvEZiMQWChuiXOVgA

What did you take away from this article? I found the concluding paragraph bizarre, with one statement in particular that revealed the author's true motivation. 

As Christians, we should desire the God-designed good for “trans” celebrities like Dylan Mulvaney. Mulvaney himself looks less than perfectly healthy. No doubt he carries his own deep-seated insecurities, which are only being inflamed by his deliberate choice to embrace a perverted self-image to an audience of millions. But willing the good for influencers like him does not mean pandering to their demands for attention and affirmation while their vulnerable fans slip through the cracks. Perhaps there are dark parts of Mulvaney’s story that we will never know. Perhaps he’s a victim of trauma, like many other gay men. Or perhaps he isn’t. But whether or not he’s a victim, he has now made himself a perpetrator of deadly confusion. We don’t name it for what it is in the name of hate. We do so in the name of love.

 

[TitanTiger 20,510]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

As opposed to:  Read this anecdote.  And how about this one?

Therefore, we need to legislate against care for transsexuals, regardless of the patient needs - along with their parents - as well as the medical professionals opinions. Us state legislatures know better than all of them.  We don't need no stinkin' data. 

"Small government" conservatism my ass.

And your last sentence reveals your true motivation.  You don't approve of transsexuals, period.

And speaking of "progressions" this reminds me of the progression -  in my lifetime - of how society treated homosexuality.

First, I don’t recall arguing for small government conservatism. I will not be bound by the constrictions of tribal loyalties.

Second, this discussion is not about transsexuals in general. We are talking about minors. That is what I am unwilling to allow to become acceptable - permanent, life altering, irreversible treatment on minors.

 

 

[homersapien 11,440]

50 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

First, I don’t recall arguing for small government conservatism. I will not be bound by the constrictions of tribal loyalties.

Second, this discussion is not about transsexuals in general. We are talking about minors. That is what I am unwilling to allow to become acceptable - permanent, life altering, irreversible treatment on minors.

So you're OK with intrusive government in general or just when it is executing your agenda?   That does reflects the modern "conservative" position. (Which isn't the traditional conservative position at all.)

Define "minor".  Less than 21?    Are you saying that no one less than 21 should receive any sort of treatment for gender dysphoria? Why? 

That's totally inconsistent with the recommendations of medical associations (listed above by cbo). 

Regarding surgeries, how many of these surgeries are actually being performed?  At what ages?  What are the outcomes? 

Finally, the laws being passed are not always limited to surgeries.  Many prohibit treatment in general. Most - if not all - deny the recommendations of professional organizations/societies. None of them are data-based.

These legislatures are motivated purely on the basis of their personal biases and beliefs - or even worse as cynical political strategies appealing to those who are equally ignorant of the subject. 

 

 

Edited May 17, 2023 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,440]

There is a human cost to legislating against care for adolescent transgender patients, not to mention legislating against - or firing people for - including inclusion training in curricula (as our Republican governor recently did):

 

https://www.hrc.org/news/new-study-reveals-shocking-rates-of-attempted-suicide-among-trans-adolescen

New Study Reveals Shocking Rates of Attempted Suicide Among Trans Adolescents

Harrowing statistics from a study recently published by the American Academy of Pediatrics revealed alarming levels of attempted suicide among transgender youth -- with the highest rates among transgender boys and non-binary youth. The findings emphasize the urgency of building welcoming and safe communities for LGBTQ young people, particularly for transgender youth.

More than half of transgender male teens who participated in the survey reported attempting suicide in their lifetime, while 29.9 percent of transgender female teens said they attempted suicide. Among non-binary youth, 41.8 percent of respondents stated that they had attempted suicide at some point in their lives.

Many transgender young people experience family rejection, bullying and harassment, or feel unsafe for simply being who they are - all of which can be added risk factors for suicide. Earlier this year, HRC released its 2018 LGBTQ Youth Report, which detailed similarly alarming experiences -- but also significant perseverance among LGBTQ young people in the face of daunting challenges.

There are steps that can be taken to help prevent this tragedy.

HRC Foundation’s Welcoming Schools program provides specific guidance to parents, teachers and the wider community for preventing anti-LGBTQ bullying and aggression in schools. This can be as simple as responding appropriately to anti-LGBTQ comments in the classroom, or encouraging educators to promote inclusivity and diversity in their lesson plans.

Parents and families can start by learning the facts and educating themselves about issues that impact LGBTQ youth. Whether or not families have openly LGBTQ children, it is vital to make home a safe and affirming space for all identities.

[PUB78 1,362]

2 hours ago, cbo said:

What did you take away from this article? I found the concluding paragraph bizarre, with one statement in particular that revealed the author's true motivation. 

As Christians, we should desire the God-designed good for “trans” celebrities like Dylan Mulvaney. Mulvaney himself looks less than perfectly healthy. No doubt he carries his own deep-seated insecurities, which are only being inflamed by his deliberate choice to embrace a perverted self-image to an audience of millions. But willing the good for influencers like him does not mean pandering to their demands for attention and affirmation while their vulnerable fans slip through the cracks. Perhaps there are dark parts of Mulvaney’s story that we will never know. Perhaps he’s a victim of trauma, like many other gay men. Or perhaps he isn’t. But whether or not he’s a victim, he has now made himself a perpetrator of deadly confusion. We don’t name it for what it is in the name of hate. We do so in the name of love.

 

Oh, I don’t hate him, I feel very sorry for his confusion and sickness. However, his celebrity status is a disgrace.

Edited May 17, 2023 by PUB78

[DKW 86 7,440]

On 5/17/2023 at 4:07 PM, homersapien said:

So you're OK with intrusive government in general or just when it is executing your agenda?   That does reflects the modern "conservative" position. (Which isn't the traditional conservative position at all.)

Define "minor".  Less than 21?    Are you saying that no one less than 21 should receive any sort of treatment for gender dysphoria? Why?   No one said that.... 

That's totally inconsistent with the recommendations of medical associations (listed above by cbo). 

Regarding surgeries, how many of these surgeries are actually being performed?  At what ages?  What are the outcomes?  No one said that....

Finally, the laws being passed are not always limited to surgeries.  Many prohibit treatment in general. Most - if not all - deny the recommendations of professional organizations/societies. None of them are data-based. No one said that....

These legislatures are motivated purely on the basis of their personal biases and beliefs - or even worse as cynical political strategies appealing to those who are equally ignorant of the subject. No one said that.... AND that would be how all legislatures work. Do you have any self awareness?

Edited May 20, 2023 by DKW 86

[icanthearyou 4,463]

On 5/17/2023 at 5:45 PM, PUB78 said:

Oh, I don’t hate him

Typical bigoted "christian" response. 

[PUB78 1,362]

55 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

Typical bigoted "christian" response. 

You are truly a sick and confused person. I feel sorry for you.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

Just now, PUB78 said:

You are truly a sick and confused person. I feel sorry for you.

I am sorry.  However, I feel you are missing the entire point of Jesus' teaching. 

[GoAU 1,600]

On 5/17/2023 at 5:16 PM, homersapien said:

There is a human cost to legislating against care for adolescent transgender patients, not to mention legislating against - or firing people for - including inclusion training in curricula (as our Republican governor recently did):

 

https://www.hrc.org/news/new-study-reveals-shocking-rates-of-attempted-suicide-among-trans-adolescen

New Study Reveals Shocking Rates of Attempted Suicide Among Trans Adolescents

Harrowing statistics from a study recently published by the American Academy of Pediatrics revealed alarming levels of attempted suicide among transgender youth -- with the highest rates among transgender boys and non-binary youth. The findings emphasize the urgency of building welcoming and safe communities for LGBTQ young people, particularly for transgender youth.

More than half of transgender male teens who participated in the survey reported attempting suicide in their lifetime, while 29.9 percent of transgender female teens said they attempted suicide. Among non-binary youth, 41.8 percent of respondents stated that they had attempted suicide at some point in their lives.

Many transgender young people experience family rejection, bullying and harassment, or feel unsafe for simply being who they are - all of which can be added risk factors for suicide. Earlier this year, HRC released its 2018 LGBTQ Youth Report, which detailed similarly alarming experiences -- but also significant perseverance among LGBTQ young people in the face of daunting challenges.

There are steps that can be taken to help prevent this tragedy.

HRC Foundation’s Welcoming Schools program provides specific guidance to parents, teachers and the wider community for preventing anti-LGBTQ bullying and aggression in schools. This can be as simple as responding appropriately to anti-LGBTQ comments in the classroom, or encouraging educators to promote inclusivity and diversity in their lesson plans.

Parents and families can start by learning the facts and educating themselves about issues that impact LGBTQ youth. Whether or not families have openly LGBTQ children, it is vital to make home a safe and affirming space for all identities.

Just out of curiosity, what are the suicide rates before and after surgery?

Based on a quick scan, there seems to be a lack of consensus:

 

https://www.heritage.org/gender/commentary/sex-reassignment-doesnt-work-here-the-evidence

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10027312/

 

However, I haven’t heard anyone saying care for trans minors is the problem.  I think most people disagree about the type of care and specifically life altering and irreversible care such as puberty blockers and surgery.  

On 5/17/2023 at 5:07 PM, homersapien said:

So you're OK with intrusive government in general or just when it is executing your agenda?   That does reflects the modern "conservative" position. (Which isn't the traditional conservative position at all.)

Define "minor".  Less than 21?    Are you saying that no one less than 21 should receive any sort of treatment for gender dysphoria? Why? 

That's totally inconsistent with the recommendations of medical associations (listed above by cbo). 

Regarding surgeries, how many of these surgeries are actually being performed?  At what ages?  What are the outcomes? 

Finally, the laws being passed are not always limited to surgeries.  Many prohibit treatment in general. Most - if not all - deny the recommendations of professional organizations/societies. None of them are data-based.

These legislatures are motivated purely on the basis of their personal biases and beliefs - or even worse as cynical political strategies appealing to those who are equally ignorant of the subject. 

 

 

Wouldn’t the issue seem to be making life altering, irreversible decisions before the brain is even done completely developing (as you said in a different thread)?   At what point do you think a child has achieved the point to make these types of decisions?   
 

Do you think there should be a different course of action / care before rushing to “affirming” care?

[icanthearyou 4,463]

On 6/1/2023 at 2:31 PM, GoAU said:

Do you think there should be a different course of action / care before rushing to “affirming” care?

What makes you believe that is actually happening?  Do you think these individuals are not vetted, emotionally, psychologically?  Do you think this is like getting a nose job?

[homersapien 11,440]

On 6/1/2023 at 3:31 PM, GoAU said:

Just out of curiosity, what are the suicide rates before and after surgery?

Based on a quick scan, there seems to be a lack of consensus:

https://www.heritage.org/gender/commentary/sex-reassignment-doesnt-work-here-the-evidence

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10027312/

Sorry but I don't rely on medical information from some opinion writer for the Heritage organization.   

 

Regarding the NIH article:

Abstract

"Gender-affirming treatment remains a topic of controversy; of particular concern is whether gender-affirming treatment reduces suicidality. A narrative review was undertaken evaluating suicide-related outcomes following gender-affirming surgery, hormones, and/or puberty blockers. Of the 23 studies that met the inclusion criteria, the majority indicated a reduction in suicidality following gender-affirming treatment; however, the literature to date suffers from a lack of methodological rigor that increases the risk of type I error. There is a need for continued research in suicidality outcomes following gender-affirming treatment that adequately controls for the presence of psychiatric comorbidity and treatment, substance use, and other suicide risk-enhancing and reducing factors. There is also a need for future systematic reviews given the inherent limitations of a narrative review. There may be implications on the informed consent process of gender-affirming treatment given the current lack of methodological robustness of the literature reviewed."

That all sounds reasonable to me.  What's your point?

Edited June 5, 2023 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,440]

On 6/1/2023 at 3:31 PM, GoAU said:

However, I haven’t heard anyone saying care for trans minors is the problem.  I think most people disagree about the type of care and specifically life altering and irreversible care such as puberty blockers and surgery.  

And "most people" are laymen who are virtually ignorant regarding the issues.  In other words they have no idea of what they are talking about.  

They have latched on to the narrative that puberty blockers and surgery are being prescribed inappropriately on large numbers of patients, only because that's a narrative they can easily understand and react to regardless of the actual facts.

It's politically-based hysteria.

 

[TexasTiger 13,006]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

And "most people" are laymen who are virtually ignorant regarding the issues.  In other words they have no idea of what they are talking about.  

They have latched on to the narrative that puberty blockers and surgery are being prescribed inappropriately on large numbers of patients, only because that's a narrative they can easily understand and react to regardless of the actual facts.

It's politically-based hysteria.

 

Experimental drugs & surgeries, particularly when there’s been a huge spike, on children don’t require hysteria to illicit concerns.

[homersapien 11,440]

On 6/1/2023 at 3:31 PM, GoAU said:

1) Wouldn’t the issue seem to be making life altering, irreversible decisions before the brain is even done completely developing (as you said in a different thread)?   2) At what point do you think a child has achieved the point to make these types of decisions?   

 

3) Do you think there should be a different course of action / care before rushing to “affirming” care?

 

1) Of course that's the issue.  Duuuuuh! 

It's obvious.  It's just as obvious that is the primary risk issue for the patients, their parents, and professionals treating those patients.  I am confident that all parties concerned recognize that.

My point is it's not the business of state governments. If they want to commission a study to determine the facts, fine.  But until then, it's not something for those governments to be regulating. 

2) Good question.  I don't know.  But I am pretty sure it likely varies from individual to individual.  There are a lot of factors in that decision and the only ones in a position to assess those factors are the patient, their parents and the professionals treating them.

3) I don't know what you mean by "rushing to affirming care".  Are you referring to hormones or surgery?  Or are you referring to any therapy that facilitates the patient's living with their self identification?

Regardless, therapy is the first step in care. Presumably, that therapy first explores the possibility of simply accommodating or attenuating the gender dysphoria until such a point the patient can make a mature decision about how they want - or must - live the rest of their life. 

If the therapy is designed to attenuate the patient's self identity, the dysphoria goes away. (Presumably, this is what happens to the casual or "faddist" transsexuals.)

If it's accommodating or supporting, that is inherently affirming the patients self identification, with or without medical treatment.

In any case "rushing" is a generalized accusation that means nothing without supporting context.  I don't think an professional therapists or psychologist would condone "rushing".

[homersapien 11,440]

26 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Experimental drugs & surgeries, particularly when there’s been a huge spike, on children don’t require hysteria to illicit concerns.

Got data?

And is there any reason to think medical professionals are oblivious or unconcerned about such a "huge spike"?

 

[TexasTiger 13,006]

Just now, homersapien said:

Got data?

And is there any reason to think medical professionals are oblivious or unconcerned about such a "huge spike"?

 

Are you genuinely unaware of the huge spike in adolescents identifying as transgender?

Do you have data on the long-term impact of puberty blockers? Cross sex hormones? Surgery? It’s too soon to have it. It’s experimental by definition. You can choose to support experimental treatment of minors, but don’t fool yourself into believing you’re supporting something with scientifically vetted long-term outcomes.
 

Know of any puberty blockers FDA approved for dysphoric youth?

[icanthearyou 4,463]

25 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Are you genuinely unaware of the huge spike in adolescents identifying as transgender?

Do you have data on the long-term impact of puberty blockers? Cross sex hormones? Surgery? It’s too soon to have it. It’s experimental by definition. You can choose to support experimental treatment of minors, but don’t fool yourself into believing you’re supporting something with scientifically vetted long-term outcomes.
 

Know of any puberty blockers FDA approved for dysphoric youth?

All valid questions. 

Still, you only present one side.  What about those who are now happy?  Do you consider those people?