SCOTUS Appears Inclined to Uphold Tenn. Law on Transgender Care

These laws outlaw all forms of treatment, including growth inhibitors and hormones. Sex change surgery is one thing, these others are something else.

It’s a complicated issue but this is a medical issue. Do we really want politicians dictating treatment instead of medical doctors? So you don’t think parents in conjunction with the child and doctor should be able to make their own decisions? You think government knows best?

 

We provide healthcare to people in prison, that is part of the deal with locking them up. What's the difference between saying what healthcare can be done in a prison and a hospital? This undermines your whole statement about it being a medical issue. If it can be denied to a certain class of people based on their status, it is super easy to argue it can be denied to essentially anyone.

 

No I don't want the government involved in anything, but there is a societal risk and cost associated with it. Like I said, there is no data so the weirdos on the left and right are making the decisions. It is what it is, I'm sure the right will pass something stupid and the left will argue something stupid.

 

I think you misunderstand my argument. There is ample data showing the efficacy of these treatments. I leave it to the doctors, patients, and families to decide whether the benefits outweigh the risks. The legislature has taken that decision out of their hands, but only for one group of people---transgender people. That is unacceptable. And your cynicism about money is misplaced. Many of the doctors providing this care are doing so because they believe it saves lives. They could make a comfortable living without gender-affirming care.

I will state again: Gender-reassignment surgeries are almost never performed on minors. The WPATH guidelines recommend age of majority, and most doctors will not perform them on people under 18.

Yeah, what you're saying here has nothing to do with science and everything to do with your own personal prejudices.

 

There is no data except well being in those studies. And certainly no long term data on hormone treatments over decades with respect to cancer, immunity and mental health. We are playing with fire...

 

Do you think these hormone treatments were invented solely for transgender people? They're not new. The law at issue in this case doesn't even deny the hormone treatments categorically. It only denies them to people seeking gender-affirming care. And there is plenty of data on whether gender-affirming care improves mental health and reduces the risk of suicide.

 

That's not necessarily true. The first gender reassignment surgery was performed in 1906. It was a rare, XXY genome case. The first US citizen to transform from male to female occurred in the early 1950s. She lived until 1989, and died of lung cancer.

There isn't a ton of data out there, but to claim zero data is false. And while the hormones from the 1950s aren't the same as puberty blockers used today, the drugs are related.

There's also data on those who receive no treatment, and that data shows higher suicide rates. Which is something science needs to consider. Maybe the puberty blockers shave X number of years off a person's life on average, but if it saves people from committing suicide early, then overall, wouldn't that be a good tradeoff?

 

And even if a person wouldn't have committed suicide, if improves their quality of life, they should have the right to weigh the risks and make their own decision.

 

We are talking about hormone treatments that are 180 from your gender, not supplementing what was there from puberty. Hormone treatments are risky even for "normal" people, and can unknowingly cause cancer and immunity issues. Doing so because society puts pressure on you or your self image isnt a reason to alter your chemistry. Its a bandaid to a bigger genetic or behavioral issue.

 

XXY is a genetic problem with its own health risks that are far more complicated. Again, the science needs to be done here, there just isnt any reliable data to make judgements on other than suicide rate. As a scientist, why is the suicide rate lower after treatment, and what is the delta on the various types? Is it societal, genetic or a molecule like hormones? That needs to be funded and researched, otherwise its a shot in the dark. We do too many experiments with people, time to let data drive decisions, not feelings or risks. Human beings are terrible at accessing risk.

 

Not paying for a particular type of healthcare and making it illegal are two different things. The bar should be pretty high for an entity to be required to pay for something radical like a sex change operation.

 

There are risks in almost all types of medical treatment. So do you think the government should completely ban this whole category of treatment or not?

 

Actually puberty blockers are still legal if the used on boys because the child is deemed to be going through puberty prematurely, but they are illegal in these states in the case of delaying puberty due to transgender issues.

 

Yet again, your personal views should have no bearing on other people's right to make their own healthcare decisions. It's their call whether they think the benefits outweigh the risks. Our country has a long history of depriving certain groups of people of equal citizenship, and that history is quite ugly.

 

It should be never, not almost never

 

then outlaw gender reassignment surgeries on minors, not all forms of treatment.

 

Hormone therapy is just as irreversible

 

I'll leave that decision to the doctors, patient, and family. The guidelines advise against it. But I don't know what exceptional circumstances might arise that would justify it for a 17 year old. I don't know anybody who supports it for younger children.

 

Are you talking about surgery or meds?

 

Gender-reassignment surgery