You are stuck as a soldier in this historical war

(this is a magical universe where people who wouldn't usually be able to fight would. so you can all suffer.)

People commonly defend this practise with "But the audience isn't meant to understand!" or "It's inconsequential!", neither of which actually address a) their assumption that the [ideal Anglo] audience wouldn't understand, or, perhaps most crucially in the context of CCs, b) that this is a failure of accessibility. A hearing person who speaks that "foreign" language will know exactly what's being said. A deaf or HoH person – the people CCs are primarily intended for – who speaks or reads that language should therefore have the exact same opportunity to understand. It very much feels to me like an assumption that we deaf and HoH people couldn't possibly understand any language but English, so there's no point in getting those languages transcribed for us. I hope it goes without saying how profoundly audist that sentiment is.

There is also, I think, a profound misunderstanding or ignorance of Deaf culture at play. Which is to say, CCs in English-language media are written with not only the assumption that the audience will be native English speakers, but that all d/Deaf and HoH people speak English as their first language, so all other languages are as supposedly foreign to them as they are for hearing people. But sign languages are their own distinct language. BSL, ASL, ISL, AusLan, NZSL etc ≠ English (and are indeed different from one another), LIS ≠ Italian, JSL ≠ Japanese, and so on. So, if you follow the captioners' logic to its natural extreme, all non-signed dialogue is "foreign" to many d/Deaf and HoH people and should therefore be labelled [speaks foreign language] / [speaks English] / [speaks own language] / etc. – which is, obviously, a terrible idea that perfectly highlights all the biases implicit in closed captioning.

UK work guidance has a minimum safe temperature for employees at work, but not a maximum one.

SIGN BOTH!!!

"Here's an entire systematic review finding that the pain box from Dune has literally no effect on anything related to detransition."

"Well it's important that we don't make people do things they regret"

But the gatekeeping model isn't just not helpful to detransitioners. It isn't just ineffective in preventing detransition. It's counterproductive.

What's less traumatic? What's less frightening and humiliating? What's less likely to lead to despair in that small fraction of patients who decide they need to stop/go back?

Option A: "You can transition if you want. Try HRT and see if you like the effects. If you're not sure, you can try a lower dose and ramp up gradually. If you want to stop, you can stop at any time. Some effects will gradually reverse themselves as your body readjust. Some may be permanent. But either way, you'll be fine. We affirm your right to make all decisions related to your transition, and we trust you to protect your own emotional wellbeing throughout this process. We're here to support you."

Option B: "You're about to make irreversible changes to your body, so we need to make sure you're making the right decision. What if you're delusional? Or immature? Or just a pervert? What if you haven't fully considered the potentially catastrophic effects of transition? You know this is mutilation of a healthy body, right? So are you sure? Are you sure? Are you really really sure? You can never go back! Point of no return! Last chance! Final countdown!"

Like, the point of this is obviously not to protect the dignity and peace of some hypothetical patient who got all the way through transition and then is like oh oops.

If that were the case, the emphasis would be completely different. It would not be stuck on let's make sure you're not about to fuck your life all the way up.

If there were any empathy or actual concern, any intrerest in detransitioners or their actual relationship to this gatekeeping process, the problem with this approach would be immediately clear. The problem with treating patients like they're not competent would be clear.

The spectre of transition regret exists to torment trans people and justify external (cis) control of transition. It's brutal because it's intended to brutalize. It's meant to create learned helplessness through shame, to punish everyone who transitions for the sin of self-determination.