It has been alleged that transgender juveniles need easy access to puberty blockers as these drugs inhibit the emergence of unwanted sexual characters. Supporters of this argument feel that these individuals need time to self-explore before settling on identities that they truly recognize (Pilgrim & Entwistle, 2020). I appreciate the need for self-awareness particularly because it enables people to understand their uniqueness and strengths, and identify the aspects needing improvement (Smit et al., 2020). The search for this kind of knowledge should, however, not require the inhibition of other kinds of growth. A child’s biological development should be allowed to run its course. The use of puberty blockers is dangerous, especially because they are largely unknown.
The Drawbacks of Consuming Puberty Blockers
Little is known about the possible side effects of the use of puberty blockers. The widespread use of these drugs could trigger a host of medical complications and actually ruin the lives of the juveniles we purport to be helping. We are not even sure if they are transgender or not, and hence a mistake can occur, which is equivalent to prescribing Paxil upon a misdiagnosed depression. Would the proponents of the use of puberty blockers still support their idea if these drugs end up causing the transgender youths to, for instance, attempt suicide like it happens with those who take Paxil?1
A quick check of those encouraging the consumption of puberty blockers shows that none of their children is actually taking them.2 This shows they are dishonest as they do not lead by example. Their sound bites have been persuasive to many other children, and it is likely that some will start using these drugs based on their alleged values. Besides that, it is apparent that advocates of puberty blockers are clearly trying to undermine social order.3 Their propositions are bound to trigger an increase in the levels of anxiety and stress among individuals, and this has the compounding effect of diminishing the degree of satisfaction with life. Additionally, there will be relationship difficulties, especially at the familial level. Certainly, there will be conflicts in a scenario where a parent does not endorse their child’s consumption of these drugs.
At least there should be parental consent before puberty blockers are administered. Fortunately, most parents are against the idea, and I believe they will decline such suggestions emphatically. In my view, they should actually consider changing neighborhoods and transferring their children from schools, which condone arguments in favor of these drugs. When it comes to the protection of a child, no effort should be spared, even if it calls for the entire family to readjust.4
Conclusion
A vast majority in society are largely unfamiliar with puberty blockers. The citizenry is skeptical about their effectiveness as well as safety. It is likely that such doubts are what dissuade the proponents of their use from having them administered on their own children. The fact that no one who is adequately informed about the drug is using them means that they are unsafe,5 and hence they should not be prescribed on juveniles.
Argument Against the Use of Puberty Blockers
It has been alleged that transgender juveniles need easy access to puberty blockers as these drugs inhibit the emergence of unwanted sexual characters. Supporters of this argument feel that these individuals need time to self-explore before settling on identities that they truly recognize (Pilgrim & Entwistle, 2020). I appreciate the need for self-awareness particularly because it enables people to understand their uniqueness and strengths, and identify the aspects in need of improvement (Smit et al., 2020). The search for this kind of knowledge should, however, not require the inhibition of other kinds of growth. A child’s biological development should be allowed to run its course. The use of puberty blockers is dangerous, especially because they are largely unknown.
The Drawbacks of Consuming Puberty Blockers
Little is known about the possible side effects of the use of puberty blockers. The widespread use of these drugs could trigger a host of medical complications and actually ruin the lives of the juveniles we purport to be helping. Following in-depth research, for instance, Pilgrim & Entwistle (2020) found a strong positive correlation between their consumption and a reduced bone density. This increases the possibility of their posture becoming stooped. Additionally, such individuals can easily suffer fractures, or fail to gain normal height. These are serious challenges that can derail someone’s life significantly, and hence puberty blockers should not be administered on juveniles.
Those encouraging the consumption of puberty blockers have failed to justify why they are absolutely necessary. They, for example, disregard the need to explain why some children need to have their biological growth inhibited. To argue that this is meant to pave the way for self-exploration already shows that the individuals in the group we are targeting with these drugs have not yet decided on how they want to identify. What if we permanently obstruct a teenager’s sexual development only for them to decide to stick with the gender assigned at birth? Would it be possible for us to unblock the process, and what would it take to do that? Instead of ending up with such a scenario, we should opt not to interfere with individuals’ growth and development.
The debate over the use of puberty blockers is polarizing. Besides the concerns about their impact on physical health, a significant number of people are opposed to them on moral and ethical grounds. Because this is not a medical emergency, those proposing the use of these drugs should allow the rest of society time to ponder over the issue. They should, for instance, continue sharing bits of information about why they are important. That should, nonetheless, be done without any kind of coercion as there is no urgency in prescribing them.
At least there should be parental consent before puberty blockers are administered on children. Their autonomy should be respected just like it happens in medical practice in general. Although healthcare practitioners may share the information on the available alternatives, a parent’s decision must not be quashed. Indeed, the presumption should be that they are competent enough to make decisions in the best interest of their children.
Conclusion
A vast majority in society are largely unfamiliar with puberty blockers. The citizenry is skeptical about their effectiveness as well as safety. It is likely that such doubts are prompted by the fact that this is an emergent procedure and, therefore, only a few studies have been published on it. The stakeholders who may wish to be adequately informed prior to making their decisions are currently facing challenges. This is why the proponents need to allow enough time to pass and for more facts to be revealed before they recommend the widespread use of these drugs. Before then, puberty blockers should not be used, and we should let children undergo normal growth and development.
References
Pilgrim, D., & Entwistle, K. (2020). GnRHa (‘Puberty Blockers’) and cross sex hormones for children and adolescents: Informed consent, personhood and freedom of expression.New Bioethics, 26(3), 224–237. Web.
Smit, D., Peelen, J., Vrijsen, J. N., & Spijker, J. (2020). An exploration of the conditions for deploying self-management strategies: A qualitative study of experiential knowledge in depression.BMC Psychiatry, 20(1), 1–11. Web.
Footnotes
- Straw Man fallacy.
- Ad Hominem fallacy.
- False Dichotomy fallacy.
- Appeal to Force fallacy.
- Appeal to Ignorance fallacy.