Good points. Very perplexing case. I had to read articles twice to get what was going on. I’m especially perplexed, though, that some call it “life-saving” care.
Good. I'm so glad we have a medical expert here to overrule doctors and patients on what healthcare is best for them. I am in fact intolerant of intolerant people. I look around me and see the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, and so on and so forth. You look around you and see Christian nationalists/MAGAs. One would think you'd do some more assessing of your stance. EDIT: And I'm focusing on you, Trickster, of all people because I believe you have a good heart. That is why I'm shocked that you'd have such a regressive view on this issue.
We have a long history of laws in this country that sought to deprive certain groups of equal status in this country simply because they were different. Criminalizing gay people having relationships. Chinese exclusion. Putting the Japanese in concentration camps. Taking away Native Americans' kids to try and "civilize" them. Excluding Black people from much of society (after treating them as property). Now, we have politicians telling folks to ignore the doctors, to ignore the leading medical associations, to ignore the studies, to ignore the patients, and to ignore the families. We must deny this different group access to medical care other people can get. Don't worry, this time it's different. It's definitely not motivated by the same intolerance of people who are different. The folks denying transgender people healthcare will go down in history as villains, just like the others in the past who sought to punish people for being different. I am quite comfortable on the side of justice, compassion, and equality.
If that doctor in Ohio violated HIPAA by talking in generalities about a 12 year old rape victim that could not get an abortion legally, then I wonder how many violations has this woman committed?
Not a fan of surgery or hormone therapy for minors. Once they turn 18, go nuts (or cut them off as the case may be!).
That's fine. You can make that choice for your kids while they're minors, and other parents can make their own decisions.
That's pretty much how I feel about this, too. I doubt any parent takes this decision lightly, and since I've never been put in that position, I can't criticize the families that make that decision either way ... but it should be the family's decision.
i try to ask first. you know, just to be polite. But back to the discussion. When Reed first published her piece making claims about the clinic, it got a lot of attention. Lots of news stories. More stories followed, of course. The university said it investigated and found her claims unsubstantiated. Patients, parents and employees were interviewed and - in either most or all cases - disputed Reed's claims. Other stories followed with Reed reaffirming her original claims. According to one of the pieces you posted, the stories that questioned or disputed her claims were all examples of media bias and were unfairly attacking Reed. Is that something you agree with? Do you really think that all the media should simply quote her claims and not look into them? If they find people or evidence disputing her claims, should they not run them? I'm really curious your take on it. thanks
I used to believe most stuff the media put out but have learned over the years that most outlets (regardless which political flavor) are heavily biased one way or the other. As far as Reed, I find it difficult to believe a “queer woman married to a transgender man” who actually worked at one of the clinics, would totally make up a story like this. Together with the practice in some European countries that are now dismantling the very same system they put in place to do this, carries more weight in my mind then biased media. I am personally against gender surgery for anyone under 18. My wife of 47 years, was quite the “tomboy” when she was in grade school, loved to compete against the boys and won most of the time until around 6th grade. She loved sports and was a ballerina then a gymnast, very good at both as well as track and climbing the tallest saplings to the top and having them bend to the ground where she would jump off. She often tells me it is a good thing she did not live in a society that practices gender change like today. A lot of times it takes your whole adolescents to grow into what you will become sexually.
That whole "tomboy" line is the most frustrating thing to hear from the anti-transgender folks. Try talking to some actual transgender people about their lives, their decision to transition, and how they knew it was what they wanted. We're not talking about "tomboys." We're talking about men who know that they are women and women who know that they are men, despite their outward appearances. This reminds me of the folks who thought being gay is just a "phase" or a "choice."
I've got a problem with making permanent, life-changing decisions when you're young. Shoot, I wouldn't let my daughters get their ears pierced until they were in middle school. But our opinions have nothing to do with what I asked. Reed made specific allegations of what many/most people would consider wrongdoing by the clinic. Her claims made news. Now, don't you think reputable media outlets should pursue that further and talk to people who have been involved with the clinic? That's what some did, and they found: Do you think the media should not have talked to patients and their parents? Or shouldn't have published what they said? the quotes came from this A Whistleblower’s Claims About a St. Louis Transgender Center Are Under Fire
Agreed. I admit I know very little about transgender care, but I don't believe for a minute that girls who like sports and boys who like the arts are being rushed into sex-change operations.
I have zero problem with diversity, love it in fact. I think the woke movement that the radical righties disparage is a good thing. My problem is with MINORS making life altering decisions about their bodies. Be gay, be transgender, be whatever makes you happy, just don't be operating on minors. That's my only point. Thanks for the kind words, BTW.
I am personally very wary of the prospect of minors receiving treatments or surgeries that are irreversible or close to it. At the same time, if government can prohibit certain medical treatments for minors, does it follow that the government also has the power to compel treatment or surgeries over the objections and wishes of the parents? Even in the case of vaccines (which involve diseases that can spread and impact third parties and public health generally), we often allow parents/children to opt their child out (I think this has been the case in Florida public schools at least). In extreme cases, my understanding is that medical care may be mandated by a court in extreme cases. Blood transfusions were litigated as I recall, but I can't remember the status of the law on those. Overall, I feel like we have typically recognized significant leeway to parents when it comes to medical care, as we do with home schooling, corporal punishment, and other aspects of child-rearing. Should we feel the need to be consistent about government banning care versus mandating it?
But minors aren't making the decisions alone. Their parents and doctors are also part of the equation. We have to make many life-altering decisions for minors when it comes to their healthcare. Chemo for a child with cancer might be a life-altering decision. Yet, we trust the minor, parents, and doctors to collaboratively make those calls. Why is this different? A number of studies show gender-affirming care can save lives. Here's a recent study in JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) finding that gender-affirming care is associated with lower odds of depression and suicidality: Mental Health Outcomes in Transgender and Nonbinary Youths Receiving Gender-Affirming Care - PubMed After adjustment for temporal trends and potential confounders, we observed 60% lower odds of depression (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.40; 95% CI, 0.17-0.95) and 73% lower odds of suicidality (aOR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.11-0.65) among youths who had initiated PBs or GAHs compared with youths who had not. -------------------------------------------------- Shouldn't we continue to trust the medical experts and let the families and children make the call on what is best for them? Why do we need politicians telling one group they're not allowed to access treatments that are available to and considered safe for other people? (Puberty blockers and hormones are used for purposes outside of gender-affirming care, and these laws passed by the Republicans aren't seeking to prevent those other uses of these same drugs.) As for operations, the accepted practice is that you must be 18 or older to get bottom surgery. It is possible to get top surgery before 18, but we also allow minors to get breast implants.
Here's an even bigger one, if the government can tell transgender kids they're not allowed to get gender-affirming care, can't it tell you and your family that you're not allowed to get treatment for cancer, HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, etc.?
