Not sure why I'm bothering with this. But it's extremely rare that this particular situation is actually a real proposition, though.

It's popular to put gender-roles and gender, as well as physical appearance into a "scientific" unified block. And that's.. curious, to say the least. You have examples of girls who are born with testosterone levels and the glands and physical make-up to be, in effect, men. And you have boys who produce estrogen to a level where it affects their physicality very obviously. But these situations are rare, and we just don't know if fixing them one way or the other halfway to puberty is going to either help or harm them. It's also not technically impossible for a girl with over usual testosterone levels to give birth.. you know, whether it makes you queazy or not, it's not a given that if you show signs of "leaning" towards the other end in any stage of these "sciences", that you're actually going to be talking about anything else than psychological well-being for either the parents, or for the child later when they're castigated by society.

You essentially don't get actual doctors who say that they'd recommend chemical treatment one way or the other for the sake of the patient seen from an isolated medical perspective.

Meanwhile, remember that gender is not decided in a fetus until very late, surprisingly late, in the stages of fetal development. On the other end, we also know that being exposed to chemicals of various.. even government approved kinds of amounts.. is going to hasten or slow puberty compared to a "normal"/average time-horizon. It's just not a solid science that determines what "natural" is, and specially not what is going to be the most pleasant for the child. On top of that, we generally live much longer now than just 50 years ago - meaning that your "ideal" make up is perhaps not actually becoming a work-horse with baloons for muscles at the age of 16.

Take my own example. I got into puberty late, like my father, and like my grandfather, turns out. But when I was 12-13, my parents and some doctors convinced themselves of that I should be put on steroid treatment to "get things started". And this was completely safe, apparently, and although I was skeptical, you don't have much to say when you're 12 and your parents just "want what's good for you". So I got put on smaller doses of steroids until I started growing a bit faster, etc. Still remember that the biggest argument was that I should get hair on my crotch like my classmates. That was the biggest argument and the greatest concern here.

When the cure started, I basically thought I was going to become a rapist. It may be just because of the way I analyze everything effortlessly, and require that to stay calm and "normal", but my body just got fucked up. Thinking back on it now, I think people expected me to start becoming "normal", and run after girls. But I thought I was dangerous, and I probably was too. If you've trained in a gym, you've likely seen grown people like that at some point, in short periods (rather than years). And imagine a kid going through something like that.

Eventually the pills were spent, and in time the ears grew to become slightly smaller than my shoulders again, my dick didn't slap my knees any more, and things like that. And then I actually did go into puberty, like everyone else, and it wasn't another "cure", let me assure you of that. Worked out well enough in the end. But apparently my body just didn't go into puberty at 12.7 years old for another 3.6 years, before being "fully developed". And although I looked the part, I didn't feel well about myself until much later. Of course, I still have that laid-back neither-or attitude that I've always had. That, over the years, have been seen as extremely chauvinistic, as well as flirting with the feminine, and all the way back to not being masculine enough, and then certainly gay, to not gay in any way at all, etc. In just 20 years or so after I turned 12, and that I can remember well, society around me has judged me both ways backwards several times, in other words. If I cared, I most certainly would have been mentally ill by now, if I wasn't before.

But the kind of stuff you put kids through with chemicals in a period like that isn't going to seem "unnatural" to the kid, right? They have no idea. Kids are dumb, and they're pliable, and they have no established identity yet. So they're not going to complain. In fact, they might want to be accepted and treated as normal, no matter what the cost.

So think about that. That the actual situations where you really do have a decision to make - when the fetus doesn't develop one gender, or neither gender, for example. Or when you can measure that the hormone levels are way off. These are actually incredibly rare. Rather what you typically get into is a situation where you might want to "perhaps" "help" the child "a little bit" on the way to become normal to society, as god intended. With chemicals.

Obviously I have very strong opinions on this, but at least try to understand that the context where this debate seems to be a controversial subject, actually is only addressing a very rare situation. The larger context is the way we tend to mix "science" with "social science". In an effort to make our preferences and notions of "normal" seem proven without any room for doubt.

And in that sense, starting to "treat" children in multiple stages, from psychological to physical therapy to orient them into a particular "normal" outcome, in line with what the advertisement boards insist we should look like -- that hardly seems more advanced and sophisticated, or scientific, than Chinese girls having their toes and feet crushed to become pretty, does it.

Actually, no. Denying one's true identity leads to a world full of hurt, arguably (especially for extremely dysphoric people) worse than being open about it.

Then is it a viable option to let your children be whatever they want in private but keep it a secret in public?

hahah. Yeah, that probably would work.

No, the problem is before that, right? Like I said, we tend to believe, genuinely, as parents or guardians, or friends and classmates, that if you're not "normal", and at the very least more normal than most others, then you're going to be unhappy and things are terrible for you. At some point, you are going to talk to a cousin, or a friend, or a child or an adult - who feel in some way that they're never, ever, going to fit in. That they are utterly screwed. Because they don't have the right hairpin, or because their knees are too big. Always happens.

And if you have to put someone through electroshock theraphy in a sanitarium to get rid of the devils in someone's head to make them fit in, or saw off someone's kneecaps with a surgical tool that leaves hardly any marks - well, then that's just done because of love and compassion.

Or, oh, no, father drinks too much - better cure the drinking problem so he can get back to his soul-crushing job and his unfaithful wife as soon as possible! And then things will be all right! Because we love him so much. Etc.

The thing is that there are situations where, no doubt, some of this gender theraphy has value. But it's never a science with a finite and perfect answer. In even the most obvious of cases, you still have to admit that the major concern we have has to do with whether or not it's socially acceptable. And that our concern is how deviating from this, in turn may give you serious trouble growing up.

For example, I would have /loved/ to make sure that everyone genetically conditioned to be political populists should go through theraphy throughout their entire first 20 years, to save the society from the terrible menace they will undoubtedly grow up to become.

And yet, even if that was possible - do I really know if the result is going to be any better? You just don't know. I might convince myself that I do - and holy crap do I hate fleeting uncommitted airheads with no opinions other than what people put in their heads. But then again -- I don't know. Heck, forcing them to be sensible might make it seem like they're all right, strolling around apparently with difficult thoughts being put through the wringer in their heads constantly - but really, maybe what I had been doing all along was to put perfectly normal people with the specific genetic predictors through torture for most of their life. For my own sense and wish for a reasonable society where everyone is happy.

And so on. Again, just saying that the demand to "fix" someone's hormone balance down to "acceptable" levels is often depicted as if it is a decision between your kid growing a dick or massive breasts. But those situations are actually rare (thankfully - since often pollution and fetal disfiguration comes first). What you actually have the most of is just people not fitting into a perfect image of what we, as parents even, expect.

And if you think that isn't going to spread to the kids later on - when they see their parents getting a heart-attack when they pick up the pink toy rather than the blue one. Then think again.

Look here, I did not say do hormone, electrical shock, fix people and other stuff.

I am saying will it be viable that let the child be, but be stealthy about it? That way the child have less discrimination coming his / her way and be able to identify with whatever identity they want in places that are acceptable of them?

As what I say to nipsen, will it be more viable to do the thing you do, namely do not contact with people that are not tolerant of you or be stealthy about it when it is unavoidable and keep to places that accept you?

The parents can temper somewhat, but when it fails it is better to teach stealth?

Just don't go everywhere broadcasting you have a mutation and it is normal?

I didn't even know about my mutation until I was 20, so didn't know what the problem was exactly and why everybody hated me, so I was hardly able to "broadcast" anything other than my overall strangeness I wasn't even aware of. As I've said, "being stealthy about it" is simply impossible since humans are full of expectations when it comes to their environment and won't just let anyone live in peaceful seclusion. As a parent, I'd probably rather just give the child love and teach it martial arts, both resulting in more self acceptance, having a way to deal with people if they get nasty and not giving a damn most of the time.

Ok, your mutation is unable to be stealthy about it, how about gender identity?

Surely it is more controllable when and where to express yourself?

I doubt it. Specific things are expected from women and especcially from men. If you got a tender souled man that doesn't understand the concept of keeping the constant subtle fighting up to not fall to the bottom of the hierarchy and that has more interest in arts than sports, he will be mobbed already, not only by other pupils and colleagues but also by teachers and bosses.

I am a bit loss regarding what you mean. Do you mean because you cannot live up to all expectation of men or women you are immediately hated?

If that is what you mean I could not live up to every expectation as a men either. I am call gay in my school days because I kept my distance from women. I just ignore these people and kept to my own circle of friends, small it may be. The teacher only expectation I have to answer to is my studies and boss my work.

I do not need to answer all expectation as a man.

Some transgender people, after transitioning to the point where they can pass as the gender they identify as, go stealth, hiding the fact that they are transgender. This sometimes involves moving to a new place, and sometimes a complete change of name (not just a first name change, which is common among transgender people).

So if someone who identify differently then their biology, will it be better to go stealth?
Be it temporary pose as their gender biology to avoid discrimination or after surgery as the gender they identify with.

Discrimination is not going away anytime soon, so will it be more worthwhile to temporary hide their gender orientation, or face discrimination blaring their identity?

You're putting too much focus on the surgery. In your everyday interactions with the majority of people, do you notice the person's genitals?

Also, gender identity does appear to have biological origins. Furthermore, someone on hormones is pretty much biologically the sex the hormones correspond to.

For the LGB, they don't need surgery, for the transgender, isn't sex change one of their prominent drive?

Also what about my earlier question? Will it be better for the individual transgender to go stealth on places people frown upon them and be themselves in places people accept them?
Or is it worthwhile to take the discrimination by blaring their identity in places they are not welcome?

My opinion here, legally, on public land, no. Its not the responsibility of the state to protect the feelings of people who might be offended by the presence of trans people as similar to those absent duties of the state to protect religious people from atheists or art haters from artists. If anyone is being a public nuisance its different obviously, but that doesn't have to do with gender.
If some trans people trespass onto private permission to protest an anti-trans rally or something, it is legally OK to arrest them, because private property is private no matter what (unless a military jet crashes into it or the like). So IMO legally, trans people should be allowed to show themselves up the way that is permitted to normal people on public property. On private property, its not really our decision.

Thought wise and morality wise though, legal right to display oneself as trans may not be good because people could easily do stuff that is not defined as crime but is still socially embarrassing or undesirable.

Legally, they should have the right IMO, since equality. Morally, other people will have to live with the fact that not everyone is like them and needs to follow their normalcy test.

Wow PC Gamer says anti ISIS = anti-Muslim : https://archive.is/5qee7