• queermunist she/her
    link
    fedilink
    -29 months ago

    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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      09 months ago

      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.

      • queermunist she/her
        link
        fedilink
        -2
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        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.