That justification gets even weaker when there’s no fire in the lethal crash. They’re not looking at burned skeletons, they’re just looking at corpses.
Also! Skeletal differences are actually minimal in people who transitioned at a young enough age, so that wouldn’t even be helpful in their case.
Yeah, its a weak justification, but worth lining up, so that it can be knocked back down.
In this strawman, the point is to be prepared for the worst case, which would be skeletal remains only.
The skeletal differences being minimal depending on the age of transition is interesting, do you have a source? Id like to know more.
Of course that gets even muddier for this strawman, because the authority could make up arbitrary rules like “If you transition before X years old, you can change your official gender”. Which ends up essentially the same as the “when is it life” discussion, and we all know how that panned out.
The defining skeletal differences are mostly in the pelvis, which undergoes much of its development in puberty. Intervention in those years should allow for trans teens to develop along affirming physiological lines, rather than being mutilated by a dysphoric puberty.
Buuuuut I did overstate my case, though; such early treatment is still on the rarer side, so it doesn’t look like there’s definitive answers on how that impacts skeletal development. We can draw conclusions, I think, but the literature is mostly focused on the psychological development rather than looking at physiology.
Yeah, possibly needs more research. I read something about bone density being mostly unchanged, but that may also be intervention age dependant as well.
Also, as a fairly contentious issue, the literature is also prone to biases.
Thanks for your response though, I appreciate it :)
That justification gets even weaker when there’s no fire in the lethal crash. They’re not looking at burned skeletons, they’re just looking at corpses.
Also! Skeletal differences are actually minimal in people who transitioned at a young enough age, so that wouldn’t even be helpful in their case.
Yeah, its a weak justification, but worth lining up, so that it can be knocked back down.
In this strawman, the point is to be prepared for the worst case, which would be skeletal remains only.
The skeletal differences being minimal depending on the age of transition is interesting, do you have a source? Id like to know more.
Of course that gets even muddier for this strawman, because the authority could make up arbitrary rules like “If you transition before X years old, you can change your official gender”. Which ends up essentially the same as the “when is it life” discussion, and we all know how that panned out.
The defining skeletal differences are mostly in the pelvis, which undergoes much of its development in puberty. Intervention in those years should allow for trans teens to develop along affirming physiological lines, rather than being mutilated by a dysphoric puberty.
Buuuuut I did overstate my case, though; such early treatment is still on the rarer side, so it doesn’t look like there’s definitive answers on how that impacts skeletal development. We can draw conclusions, I think, but the literature is mostly focused on the psychological development rather than looking at physiology.
Yeah, possibly needs more research. I read something about bone density being mostly unchanged, but that may also be intervention age dependant as well. Also, as a fairly contentious issue, the literature is also prone to biases.
Thanks for your response though, I appreciate it :)