Florida Dept. of Health no longer supports treatment of gender dysphoria for minors

Kind of like Trump supporters, then?

It shouldn't come as a surprise that even those on the same side of a political aisle do not always march in lockstep when it comes to everything. Disagreement should be allowed, and people's beliefs questioned with open, honest debate should be encouraged.

The true wise ones should be the ones who have studied the issue for their entire careers. They are the experts, and we would all be wise to at least listen to their position. Too often, people believe their uniformed opinion are equal to the facts espoused by experts with years of school and practical experience under their respective belts. We see it here in this thread, and in many others such as the coronavirus threads. When everyone is an expert, there is no expert, and marks the death of expertise.

I'll reiterate it, that the true experts see value in puberty blockers. It's what's best for trans kids who have lived with gender dysphoria for years, and do not want to show traits of a gender they feel would be wrong for them to show. The results of those on gender blockers is also plain to see. A significant reduction in suicide attempts for those who take them. This has lead to the expert conclusion that prescribing these blockers for the kids who fit the right criteria, and who's parents agree, to be the best course of action.

I'll ask this again. Who am I to disagree? Who are you?

 

Deep.

 

Just a friendly reminder that conservatives would rather defend the extremists on their side, than ever having dialog to reach a compromise with the other side...

 

I've seen some of those posters presented with facts, asked to read up on the subject, extended all the good faith in the world in attempts to educate them on the issue and still they doubled down on their repulsion to the idea of kids getting clinically sanctioned medical care that doesnt affect them at all. What should we conclude? Are liberals/Dem voters immune to being homophobic or racist? Not also fearful of social change they dont understand?

 

Hey man, im not the one that launches those lazy labels. Take it up with them. They are the wise ones I am talking about

 

Sort of ironic in this thread though dontcha think?

 

Just two historical examples.
There are numerous others. It's why you always must differentiate between moral and political reasoning. Right now Democrats are facing electoral disaster in November. That will eliminate much of the legal protection for marginalized groups, and the group that takes power is bent on revenge in removing rights and hurting the marginalized. It's always a strategic determination, thinking that if you appease the oppressor somewhat, they won't keep trying to oppress. Sometimes you're successful; more times you are not.

Consider the dilemma of Disney. It tried to advocate behind-the-scenes but then when its own employees advocated that it stand up for their humanity as it had in the past, suddenly Disney was attacked with potential ruinous economic consequences because it refused to endorse bigotry. Powerful incentive to go along with discrimination.


Why the Women's Rights Movement Split Over the 15th Amendment (U.S. National Park Service)

The tipping point for AERA came during its third annual meeting on May 12, 1869. Frederick Douglass rose to speak and argued that Stanton's use of racist language and stereotypes was offensive. He continued by arguing that "I do not see how any one can pretend that there is the same urgency in giving the ballot to woman as to the negro. With us, the question is a matter of life and death, at least, in fifteen States of the Union [in reference to the former slave states]. When women, because they are women, are hunted down through the cities of New York and New Orleans . . . when they are in danger of having their homes burnt down over their heads; when their children are not allowed to enter schools; then they will have an urgency to obtain the ballot equal to our own."

Susan B. Anthony responded to Douglass. She argued that "if you will not give the whole loaf of suffrage to the entire people, give it to the most intelligent first. If intelligence, justice, and morality are to have precedence in the government, let the question of women brought up first and that of the negro last . . . Mr. Douglass talks about the wrongs of the negro; but with all the outrages that he today suffers, he would not exchange his sex and take the place of Elizabeth Cady Stanton." Echoing Frances Ellen Watkins Harper's earlier comments, Sojourner Truth asserted that “There is a great stir about colored men getting their rights, but not a word about the colored woman; and if colored men get their rights, and not colored women get theirs, there will be a bad time about it.” The organization's fault lines began to show.


https://www.jstor.org/stable/1123803

"Transforming" the Debate: Why We Need to Include Transgender Rights in the Struggles for Sex and Sexual Orientation Equality
Taylor Flynn
Columbia Law Review
Vol. 101, No. 2 (Mar., 2001)

I can't reproduce part of this paper, but it was part of the debate long ago. Other parts of the gender nonconforming coalition said that trans rights had to be omitted to avoid societal backlash, to stick to the fight for marriage equality. That was likely wise politically, but did leave others vulnerable.

The bottom line is that the next generation will change the debate on this issue whether we like it or not. The only variables are how long it will take and how many are hurt in the process and how much we deal with the shame of our past conduct. At least on the last issue, likely not much. Consider the current debate on critical race theory. We cannot acknowledge flaws in history and in our present. Few societies do, but we are backsliding into oppression in a way I would not spend as possible only a few years ago. We are in a literal pandemonium, in the most literal sense of the original term

 

You're just asking questions, as per the parlance.

 

Appreciate the thoughtful response...and i think bigotry is different than what we are discussing here.

The denial of constitutional rights for transgenders (workplace, housing etc) is bigotry under our laws. I think every employee deserves the exact same and equal treatment under the law.

What I am questioning along with even some on the left is if there is harm in a parent allowing this at such a young age.

My guess is the jury is still out on much of this

 

I think you are narrowing the parameters of the current public debate in a way that I do not find recognizable. There is some thoughtful discussion on that issue (age to make decisions on various measures) which I've not seen even closely approximated by the generalist journalists who attempt to address it.

It's not nearly as binary an issue, pun intended, as you might think, at least among those who study the issue on the perspective of the best interest of the individual rather than considering the impacts of society and its current ability to accept.

To use the Michael Hobbes' framing, it's a moral panic disguised as a discussion of in loco parentis

 

I think it's fair to ask questions about and debate the scope and nature of treatment that is appropriate for transgender minors, particularly young kids (i.e., hormones versus surgery). However, while this debate is about -or should be about - medicine, science, and the best interests of the child, it is also part of our broader culture war. There are many who view validation of transgender treatment - similar to acceptance of homosexuality - as a sin and an attack on traditional values, whether we're talking about kids or adults. I think we have a situation where both sides question the motives of the other.

 

Personally, I think "trans/homophobia" is giving people the benefit of the doubt. People are afraid of what they dont understand, it can be confusing, and many people dont have any direct dealing with it. That is understandable, and human. Many people on the side of LGBTQ rights now have had (or still have) those feelings too, society practically instils them in you, especially if you are over 40. But when you use that impulse to say "these things I find uncomfortable need to be stopped," or to justify discrimination so you can be made to feel comfortable, well, that isnt really defensible. If you dont want to attempt to understand or feel empathy, who's the one not being open minded? Some people go even further and just turn into plain old bigots, which is not defensible either. If you dont want to take a live and let live approach to this stuff and insist the government tell people how to live, contrary to medical practice and expertise, well it just so happens you will probably get lumped in with the bigots. Not my fault, and I dont feel bad for ya.

 

Neither "side" is monolithic, of course. I'm not what percentage of it is due to discomfort and/or a lack of information, but I think a pretty significant percentage is based upon religious views. Those might be harder to change, but the needle seems to have moved in recent years even among the religious.

 

The discomfort and lack of information precedes all else. Religious views are simply a way for people to say feeling that way is "ok" and even right. Their fight is forces that say the discomfort is a failing of sorts, that ignorance is no excuse for bigotry. Ultimately, the phobes and bigots want to be told they are not wrong to feel that way, and there are plenty of people willing to tell them that for various reasons. Most of which have nothing to do with religion.

 

No one in this thread is saying that free thinking adults should not be allowed to identify or live as they wish. This thread is about young kids. Prepubescent kids.

Pretty sure everyone here has said do whatever you want when you are older.

 

That's a) a cop out and excuse to impose the government on people's lives over something you dont agree with and b) not something anyone ever says about non-trans kids. Kids start identifying as something much earlier than 18, they have girlfriends or boyfriends etc, wear the clothes they want, grow bad facial hair on purpose, etc. Puberty happens before you are a legal adult. If someone wants to delay puberty, whats the big deal when its done under the guidance of a parent and doctor?

 

And who is most qualified to make the best decisions for kids? Random people on a message board? The state? Or a combination of qualified medical professionals, the kid's parents, and if old enough, input from the kid too?

 

I'm not sure anyone is qualified to make the decision to do these sorts of things to a person other than that person, who can't effectively consent until they're an adult. In the absence of consent, the default is generally that a procedure can't move forward. So it's not really a decision, but the lack of one.

 

Give me a break, a parent can consent to medical care for their kid who may not yet comprehend all the risks and benefits. This would also mean someone could never have an abortion either. Or give birth for that matter lol. The baby cant consent to a c-section, gotta default to a doctor not being able to deliver the baby, right?

 

We dont allow kids to do many things.
Medical outcomes are not the only criteria.