What you quoted appears intended to equal an actual surgical castration to remove the penis as well as the testicles. Nevertheless, let us pretend, since I am Humble--Yet MagNIfIcent--that the intended reference was "chemical castration." Is that what is happening?Anaxagoras wrote:I think that Abdul's position is that giving the hormones is equivalent to chemical castration.
Back in 2011, the American College of Pediatrics came down very strongly against the practice:
There is a lot of "claims without evidences"--thanks--in that statement. I then searched to see if there is any update. There is in a way a VERY long article from 2016 along with evidences references for the statements well worth reading before commenting upon it further:The American College of Pediatricians (The College) is alarmed by the increasingly prevalent and unscientific trend to treat Gender Identity Disorder (GID) in children as an inborn trait rather than as the treatable psychological condition it is. GID in children is manifest as a strong desire to be the opposite sex, and/or the belief that he or she actually is the opposite sex.
. . . .
Puberty is not a disorder. Psychologically dissociating from your biological gender is. Hormone blocking agents induce a disease state (the absence of puberty) at a critical time in a child’s physical, emotional and mental development. Sex hormones not only trigger the development of secondary sex characteristics, but also influence the development of the adolescent brain. This likely explains why most GID children come to accept their biological gender during adolescence.
ABSTRACT: Gender dysphoria (GD) of childhood describes a psychological condition in which children experience a marked incongruence between their experienced gender and the gender associated with their biological sex. When this occurs in the pre-pubertal child, GD resolves in the vast majority of patients by late adolescence. Currently there is a vigorous, albeit suppressed, debate among physicians, therapists, and academics regarding what is fast becoming the new treatment standard for GD in children. This new paradigm is rooted in the assumption that GD is innate, and involves pubertal suppression with gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists followed by the use of cross-sex hormones—a combination that results in the sterility of minors. A review of the current literature suggests that this protocol is founded upon an unscientific gender ideology, lacks an evidence base, and violates the long-standing ethical principle of “First do no harm.” At least the author did not claim that comes from the Oath of Hippocrates. . . .
As you can see from the very long article and my Humble--Yet MagNIfIcent--commentary above, there is no certainty here. The ACPeds comes down firmly on the argument that this is a psychological rather than a developmental disorder. Their use of "gender" and "sex" may rankle the Rankleble who make declarations on what they are the same way you and I try to declare what a completed catch is in the NFL. Be that as it may, they are not discussing the condition I highlighted.I personally don't know enough to say. Does it lead to impotence and/or sterility perhaps? Actual gender reassignment surgery is not being suggested though, until they are an adult.
Who is correct?