Transgender Rights

[B]

I hate to rain on everyone's boogeyman, but millions of parents decline healthcare on behalf of their kids. It happens every day, and no one takes away their kids. I know you've all heard a scary case of the fascists in California taking all the kids away from conservative parents to make them trans, but those stories are either one fucked up court case, a small piece of a larger abuse case, or complete fabrications.

It means something that the people arguing against Tennessee weren't confused middle schoolers, too young to make decisions for themselves. They were families and parents and doctors who spent years coming to decisions about transition or gender affirming care. Read some of the interviews with the parents or even their testimony in the lower court.

I know we don't let kids smoke (a drug use with no redeeming value) or get tattoos (a cosmetic procedure with no medical value) or vote (a decision that impacts other people), but I'm not sure that's a good argument for blocking kids and families from a treatment that they and their doctors and the medical community at large (American Medical Association filed a brief in support of the families) feel has more benefit than risk.

Is there a chance some my regret it later? Sure. Is there a chance some of them will suffer life-long regret for waiting too long? Sure. I know it's a terrible burden for Bi and tree and warehouse to carry, so maybe we should let families make these decisions instead of some self-important internet posters or whatever used car salesman Tennessee residents happened to elect to their state legislature.

[VinylGuy]

great post B

[warehouse]

I hate to rain on everyone's boogeyman, but millions of parents decline healthcare on behalf of their kids. It happens every day, and no one takes away their kids. I know you've all heard a scary case of the fascists in California taking all the kids away from conservative parents to make them trans, but those stories are either one fucked up court case, a small piece of a larger abuse case, or complete fabrications.

It means something that the people arguing against Tennessee weren't confused middle schoolers, too young to make decisions for themselves. They were families and parents and doctors who spent years coming to decisions about transition or gender affirming care. Read some of the interviews with the parents or even their testimony in the lower court.

I know we don't let kids smoke (a drug use with no redeeming value) or get tattoos (a cosmetic procedure with no medical value) or vote (a decision that impacts other people), but I'm not sure that's a good argument for blocking kids and families from a treatment that they and their doctors and the medical community at large (American Medical Association filed a brief in support of the families) feel has more benefit than risk.

Is there a chance some my regret it later? Sure. Is there a chance some of them will suffer life-long regret for waiting too long? Sure. I know it's a terrible burden for Bi and tree and warehouse to carry, so maybe we should let families make these decisions instead of some self-important internet posters or whatever used car salesman Tennessee residents happened to elect to their state legislature.

wtf?

i'm not sure you are following along. we aren't talking about families making decisions. if a family and their child decide they should be transitioned, great. if a child wants to be transitioned and the parents do not want to, i think the child should wait. i'm not sure what is so terrible about that. now please be careful getting off your soapbox.

[lvc]

I hate to rain on everyone's boogeyman, but millions of parents decline healthcare on behalf of their kids. It happens every day, and no one takes away their kids. I know you've all heard a scary case of the fascists in California taking all the kids away from conservative parents to make them trans, but those stories are either one fucked up court case, a small piece of a larger abuse case, or complete fabrications.

It means something that the people arguing against Tennessee weren't confused middle schoolers, too young to make decisions for themselves. They were families and parents and doctors who spent years coming to decisions about transition or gender affirming care. Read some of the interviews with the parents or even their testimony in the lower court.

I know we don't let kids smoke (a drug use with no redeeming value) or get tattoos (a cosmetic procedure with no medical value) or vote (a decision that impacts other people), but I'm not sure that's a good argument for blocking kids and families from a treatment that they and their doctors and the medical community at large (American Medical Association filed a brief in support of the families) feel has more benefit than risk.

Is there a chance some my regret it later? Sure. Is there a chance some of them will suffer life-long regret for waiting too long? Sure. I know it's a terrible burden for Bi and tree and warehouse to carry, so maybe we should let families make these decisions instead of some self-important internet posters or whatever used car salesman Tennessee residents happened to elect to their state legislature.

Not related to transgender rights at all, but given my general sense of, well, loathing for career politicians of all stripes (who each have their pet boogeymen to drum up visceral if irrational support for their re-election campaign), I actually think electing a used car salesman is closer to true representation of the people by the people. But hey, go ahead and keep condescending because that really wins people over.

The entire premise of the piece in The Atlantic that was at the beginning of this recent set of posts is that the research that transition therapy reduces suicide and self-harm is not there and possibly even actively scuttled since it indicates the opposite. So it might well be that transition therapy is a biological procedure with no measurable psychological value. If that's even remotely possible--that whatever is driving an individual's mental distress is not resolved by gender transition--that should give great pause as to what the actual root of the mental distress is. Perhaps gender dysphoria is a symptom, not the root. Wouldn't we all want more research not less as the article suggests is the case?

If it's true that people seek to bury and discredit research that goes against their narrative, then who benefits from continuing to push gender transition, especially for kids, as a cure for something if the science does not bear that out?

I can have all the compassion in the world for a parent who's child is suffering. I cannot imagine what I'd do in their shoes because I'm not in them. But I would at least want those parents to have access to the largest body of scientific research possible as they attempt to guide their child through their suffering.

My whole point is I always find it chilling when people with political motives try to tamp down rational disagreement with their talking points. And I have serious concerns that exactly that is happening with this issue. I am absolutely against genuine scientific inquiry being subverted for a political end. That's just propaganda.

[B]

if a child wants to be transitioned and the parents do not want to, i think the child should wait.

Granted, I bled into the Skrmetti decision, but this is where I started. This is the status quo. Parents make all medical decision for their kids. Any exceptions to that require long, onerous, nigh impossible processes.

[Bi_3]

I know we don't let kids smoke (a drug use with no redeeming value) or get tattoos (a cosmetic procedure with no medical value) or vote (a decision that impacts other people), but I'm not sure that's a good argument for blocking kids and families from a treatment that they and their doctors and the medical community at large (American Medical Association filed a brief in support of the families) feel has more benefit than risk.

You've left out that the reasoning is that minors are not capable of proper consent and we don't waive that through parental consent. A parent cannot authorize their kid to smoke or vote. It's a pretty important fact in the overall discussion.

[Peeps]

I know we don't let kids smoke (a drug use with no redeeming value) or get tattoos (a cosmetic procedure with no medical value) or vote (a decision that impacts other people), but I'm not sure that's a good argument for blocking kids and families from a treatment that they and their doctors and the medical community at large (American Medical Association filed a brief in support of the families) feel has more benefit than risk.

You've left out that the reasoning is that minors are not capable of proper consent and we don't waive that through parental consent. A parent cannot authorize their kid to smoke or vote. It's a pretty important fact in the overall discussion.

it is up to local laws about smoking. you have to be 21 to buy tobacco and related products but there is no federal law that says you have to be X years old to smoke

[B]

I know we don't let kids smoke (a drug use with no redeeming value) or get tattoos (a cosmetic procedure with no medical value) or vote (a decision that impacts other people), but I'm not sure that's a good argument for blocking kids and families from a treatment that they and their doctors and the medical community at large (American Medical Association filed a brief in support of the families) feel has more benefit than risk.

You've left out that the reasoning is that minors are not capable of proper consent and we don't waive that through parental consent. A parent cannot authorize their kid to smoke or vote. It's a pretty important fact in the overall discussion.

I'm not sure I understand your point. Is there a functional difference in this case? A parent consenting to gender-affirming care is no different than a parent allowing a kid to consent.

[B]

To be clear, I'm not endorsing children having the freedom to choose this care for themselves than they currently do.

[Bi_3]

I know we don't let kids smoke (a drug use with no redeeming value) or get tattoos (a cosmetic procedure with no medical value) or vote (a decision that impacts other people), but I'm not sure that's a good argument for blocking kids and families from a treatment that they and their doctors and the medical community at large (American Medical Association filed a brief in support of the families) feel has more benefit than risk.

You've left out that the reasoning is that minors are not capable of proper consent and we don't waive that through parental consent. A parent cannot authorize their kid to smoke or vote. It's a pretty important fact in the overall discussion.

I'm not sure I understand your point. Is there a functional difference in this case? A parent consenting to gender-affirming care is no different than a parent allowing a kid to consent.

The examples you gave allow for neither the parent nor the child to consent at all. Boob job would have been a better example.

[B]

I know we don't let kids smoke (a drug use with no redeeming value) or get tattoos (a cosmetic procedure with no medical value) or vote (a decision that impacts other people), but I'm not sure that's a good argument for blocking kids and families from a treatment that they and their doctors and the medical community at large (American Medical Association filed a brief in support of the families) feel has more benefit than risk.

You've left out that the reasoning is that minors are not capable of proper consent and we don't waive that through parental consent. A parent cannot authorize their kid to smoke or vote. It's a pretty important fact in the overall discussion.

I'm not sure I understand your point. Is there a functional difference in this case? A parent consenting to gender-affirming care is no different than a parent allowing a kid to consent.

The examples you gave allow for neither the parent nor the child to consent at all. Boob job would have been a better example.

Boob jobs are gender affirming care.

[Bi_3]

I know we don't let kids smoke (a drug use with no redeeming value) or get tattoos (a cosmetic procedure with no medical value) or vote (a decision that impacts other people), but I'm not sure that's a good argument for blocking kids and families from a treatment that they and their doctors and the medical community at large (American Medical Association filed a brief in support of the families) feel has more benefit than risk.

You've left out that the reasoning is that minors are not capable of proper consent and we don't waive that through parental consent. A parent cannot authorize their kid to smoke or vote. It's a pretty important fact in the overall discussion.

I'm not sure I understand your point. Is there a functional difference in this case? A parent consenting to gender-affirming care is no different than a parent allowing a kid to consent.

The examples you gave allow for neither the parent nor the child to consent at all. Boob job would have been a better example.

Boob jobs are gender affirming care.

I'm sure this type of hasty equivocation seems clever at first but it actually undermines the messaging used elsewhere in the cause by giving the impression it's all just overgeneralized jargon with nothing behind it and not a legitimate medical concern.

[B]

My point is that gender affirming care is only a problem for conservatives when it doesn't align with sex at birth. Sorry if I buried that in a failed attempt at wit.

[dimejinky99]

I know we don't let kids smoke (a drug use with no redeeming value) or get tattoos (a cosmetic procedure with no medical value) or vote (a decision that impacts other people), but I'm not sure that's a good argument for blocking kids and families from a treatment that they and their doctors and the medical community at large (American Medical Association filed a brief in support of the families) feel has more benefit than risk.

You've left out that the reasoning is that minors are not capable of proper consent and we don't waive that through parental consent. A parent cannot authorize their kid to smoke or vote. It's a pretty important fact in the overall discussion.

And you and your ilk are here to decide all that for them are you? You know better than they do for themselves, do you?

Before you say no, your entire posting history on this topic and in this thread, suggests you think you do.

[Bi_3]

My point is that gender affirming care is only a problem for conservatives when it doesn't align with sex at birth. Sorry if I buried that in a failed attempt at wit.

I'm going to have to concede that point because frankly my brain can't handle this. It looks like instead of using the well-understood meaning of "gender affirming care" in the context of trans rights, this is the trans rights thread, you are trying to change the meaning to cover everything from top surgery in a 15 year old to reconstructive surgery after a cancer patient's double mastectomy to a balding guy applying rogaine shampoo all the way to I assume a pedicure and then claim that was the real meaning all along and only bigots would not have known that. The cognitive dissonance required there is beyond what my slight 'tism can process. I'm reminded of the "2+2=5" kerfuffle or when CAIR tried to rebrand "jihad" to it's literal translation ('struggle') instead of what every who heard it context understood it to mean and they did this:




So you win this one. Well played.

[tree_]

My point is that gender affirming care is only a problem for conservatives when it doesn't align with sex at birth. Sorry if I buried that in a failed attempt at wit.

I'm going to have to concede that point because frankly my brain can't handle this. It looks like instead of using the well-understood meaning of "gender affirming care" in the context of trans rights, this is the trans rights thread, you are trying to change the meaning to cover everything from top surgery in a 15 year old to reconstructive surgery after a cancer patient's double mastectomy to a balding guy applying rogaine shampoo all the way to I assume a pedicure and then claim that was the real meaning all along and only bigots would not have known that. The cognitive dissonance required there is beyond what my slight 'tism can process. I'm reminded of the "2+2=5" kerfuffle or when CAIR tried to rebrand "jihad" to it's literal translation ('struggle') instead of what every who heard it context understood it to mean and they did this:




So you win this one. Well played.

I also struggled to interpret B's comment. Thank you for this brilliant reply.

[B]

I am aware the things mentioned vary in controversy and invasiveness, but they are all gender affirming care. You just don't think of them that way because it's more comfortable when the care align with SAB.

[spike]

This is fucked.

https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/fbi-r ... ans-people

[oasisfan35]

This is fucked.

https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/fbi-r ... ans-people

Weird how the administration is going after citizens.

The FBI cannot currently tie their own shoes, this is despicable.

[BurtReynolds]

Government going after it's own citizens?! That's never happened before!