"Today's video is a bit different than usual: typically my videos aren't aimed at children - although you're more than welcome to watch - but this video is more aimed towards parents. But this video is more about children as a category and how we as adults relate to them. Especially when it comes to medicine." Off to a great start here, no doubt. I predict he's going to bring up the "WELL WHAT ABOUT LIFESAVING TREATMENT" argument.
"You see there's this thing called puberty that can afflict your child. Now puberty, for the most part, is a completely normal and healthy part of a child's development." okay aaaaand what's the catch here? "But there are some complications. Sometimes, puberty can be difficult: for example, sometimes a child can be trans and developing secondary sexual characteristics that don't align with how they identify can be troubling. But oftentimes a lot of children feel uncomfortable by the fact that puberty's happening to them, and that's normal".
Suprisingly sane, except for the troon part - he even tells most children grow out of these feelings without a problem. However, raises the question of actul trannies "You take a medicine, you don't have your puberty, and that's basically it. These medicines do, as the name says, they slow the onset of puberty as well as reduce the effect that puberty is having on your body." Well most of the problems stem from the fact that puberty includes a lot more changes than "developing secondary sexual characteristics". Imagine if people would try to slow down the development of their toddlers because they're having some teething pains. Fuck me.
"And this can obviously be very helpful if you transition later in life because you won't have to air quotes-undo-air quotes a puberty that you didn't want anyway. Seems pretty easy, right? But there's been some controversy here." Why, oh why could that be?
"The issue that we're dealing with here is two-fold: one, are puberty blockers safe, and second, does it matter? And that second point is something that I'm gonna come back to a bit later." In what context though? This guy's dancing on the line dividing sane and insane arguments.
"So let's quickly talk about what puberty blockers are. [...] But I'd like to preface this by saying I'm not a doctor, I'm a historian by education and a youtuber by trade, so take what I say here with a pinch of salt."
At least he seems to have looked up multiple sources and does state that these medications weren't originally developed for blocking puberty.
"They are, after all, pretty strong medications, and they do have side effects, and that's where the rub is. Regarding safety. Are these side effects acceptable or not? So let's dig into them."
Inserts cuts from the infamous Linehan interview where he compared troon medicine to nazi experiments. "These comparisons annoy me quite a lot. But I do see where they're coming from: if you don't have a clear and simple answer about both the short- and long-term effects of a medication on a child but you're still prescribing it to them you could see why some people would think it would be tantamount to experimentation. Especially if you were under the impression these medications were brand new.
He seems to argue a lot for patient responsibility - problems with bone strength and similar developmental issues should by caught early during the frequent check-ups the patient should be getting anyway, since the completely responsible and reasonable doctors are scheduling more frequent check-ups for stronger drugs; and so if complications do occur the child can be taken off meds. Fair argument but he purposefully ignores how parents who troon their kids out are usually wailing banshees and won't settle for anything less than immediate and total green light for anything and everything, how troons tend to shop around for unethical doctors, and how insane TRAs are screeching about waiting lists and "medical gatekeeping" because any delay will surely mean a quick 41%.
He too brings this up, saying "Some children might just want a few months to figure things out while other children might feel so mentally unwell by the prospect of undergoing a [weak air-quotes]biological puberty[weak air-quotes] that they need this medication to stay mentally healthy." and fails to notice how it contradicts his previous argument.
"And it's also important to mention here that puberty blockers are not the same as HRT [...] they merely inhibit the [air-quotes]natural transition[air-quotes] that a puberty would cause. And it doesn't stop it entirely, it slows it down - sometimes by about 95% - but that's it. Puberty will still happen, just smaller." Paul Harrel often compares different ammunitions to a reliable baseline of average ammunition, and he often says "Is this enough of a difference to make a difference?". Well, when it's about a ~5% difference in the muzzle velocities of three or four kinds of .223, no. But 95% is effectively stopping that puberty.
Oh Jesus. At around 21:50 the troon princess of TERF Island, Philosophy Tube, Abighoul Thorn starts reading a poem, The Retreat by Welsh physician and philosopher-poet Henry Vaughan, set to Bach's BWV 1068 Air, better known as Air on G String. It's a beautiful piece but Olly's voice reading that poem makes the whole experience very unsettling.
The music carries on while the possibly pedo faggo-troon, who also changed into a different outfit that somehow accentuates his masculine face more, muses about the philosophical nature of childhood. "How do we define a child?" Getting really hard to watch now. "Well legally in many countries a child is defined as anyone under the age of 18. That is the line that we have set, anyone above is an adult, anyone below is a child. But there are obviously some grey areas. In some areas for example you are an adult, but you're not allowed to drink. In some areas you're allowed to drive before you're allowed to vote. So, many of us have already accepted that there is a sort of fluidity of childhood and it should be said the age of 18 is not a biological marker at all. It is purely an arbitrary choice. [...] The barrier of adulthood means basically nothing beyond what we decided means."
Okay, I think this is more than enough. After this he brings up the discrepancy between the legal age of adulthood, the end of bodily maturation, and the end of mental maturation. Also how children weren't defined as a "separate social class" until the 17th century. I might be jumping to conclusions by anticipating his core argument to be "since most people don't finish mental maturation until 25 and that's clearly too late we might as well let children decide whether they want to troon out or not and not place any barriers in their way", but this is getting a bit too much. I might finish the video later, but it's long, boring, and inevitably leads into degeneracy.
