America should follow the advice/medical consensus of medical professionals to reduce harm to children. And that advice/consensus includes gender affirming care.
If a child is under any psychological distress, permanent physical modifications shouldn't be an option: the distress is psychological, not physical. Psychological distress should be addressed by a psychologist, maybe a psychiatrist, not a surgeon. Personally, I believe that care should include helping the child to be comfortable with themselves in their own body, as that will help not only in the case of the child's current gender dysphoria, but also later on in adult life when reality really hits you.
If a child is under any psychological distress, permanent physical modifications shouldn’t be an option
https://www.childrenshospital.org/programs/center-gender-surgery-program/eligibility-surgery
It isn't
They are just one hospital, and they still do chest surgeries on children 15 years or older.
Only after the following, reasonable requirements:
A letter from a medical doctor or nurse practitioner stating that you have “persistent, well documented, gender dysphoria” and specifying either the length of hormone therapy or why you are not taking hormone therapy.
A letter from a mental health provider stating that you have the capacity to consent and that any significant mental health issues are being addressed
Informed consent is the very basis for modern medical decisions. This is a reasonable standard to avoid harm. And this isn't an overnight thing that you can just get approval for, it takes years to get to this point.
They definitely are doing it responsibly; I just don't agree with it. I'm generally against any form of plastic surgery or body modification. Teenagers can also be hormonal, stupid, heavily influenced by others, and rebellious. With current cultural norms, at least in the US, I wouldn't trust any child to make an adequately informed decision, especially without heavy influence from politically active parents. I work with children, and know multiple prepubescent boys and girls who talk about being the opposite sex or about being some other form of LGBTQIA+ when they haven't even developed sexual attraction yet. That's another conversation though, lol.
I wouldn’t trust any child to make an adequately informed decision
There are children who spend years of their childhood socially transitioned in some way or another. If they've done so, (which is more or less what the medical requirements are), and still after years are ok with their choice to have socially transitioned, and couple that with medical professionals being responsible, I don't see how there is an issue.
I also suspect the top surgery is more meant for people who are born inter sex, because I know if I was born inter sex, and identified as a man, I would not want to keep having man titties.
who talk about being the opposite sex or about being some other form of LGBTQIA+ when they haven’t even developed sexual attraction yet.
Gender and sexual attraction are two different things. You don't need to have any sexual attraction to have a gender identity. For instance, an ex of mine was ace, but she was still a woman. And gender identity starts forming as early as age 2:
Here is a good starting resource that can help break down the differences in these definitions:
https://www.npr.org/2021/06/02/996319297/gender-identity-pronouns-expression-guide-lgbtq
What about this study? Read the abstract, its short. It's a nih.gov website...
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35758886/
64 downvotes??? When there's like no votes at all for the comments. I read thru your links too and they are not convincing. Just you here pushing this agenda. How in the world can children consent to having their puberty blocked??? THEY ARE CHILDREN. There is a reason why children are called children. Let them make that decision at 18. Is that really so unreasonable?
What about this study?
Read up on the author. https://www.cmf.org.uk/resources/publications/authors/?id=294
The guy is clearly biased and immediately disqualifies himself by writing books about why evolution isn't real and why the brain must have a soul. He's no scientist, he's a religious fanatic pushing his own radical agenda. And if that's not enough for you, the linked study has factual inaccuracies in the abstract, such as whether puberty blockers have a positive impact on dysphoria. The fact is that statement misleads by suggesting that puberty blockers are intended to alleviate gender dysphoria, when the reality is that they're meant to prevent it from getting worse while other treatments (mostly social in nature, but also therapy and psychological evaluation) are meant to alleviate dysphoria and provide time for the patient to consider if those treatments are working or not, which informs the decision to continue on that treatment path.
No reasonable person is suggesting that children can make these decisions on their own. They're making the decisions with the aid of family and a whole team of medical and mental health professionals over the course of years and years. Nobody wants a kid to transition if they're not actually trans, because studies have shown that actually makes dysphoria worse.
The bottom line is that preventing a child from accessing that assistance is going to make them less able to make a healthy decision at the age of 18 than they otherwise would, with the aide of professionals, at the age of 15.
What is all this talk of there being more than two genders? Guess what... it's pretty simple. There's two physical genders Male and Female. One can have tendencies towards one side or the other but that doesn't meant there is more than two. turn the page now. lol
You've confused gender for sex, which are two different things. Sex is assigned at birth, whereas gender is performative. You behave, think, dress, etc your gender.
Blocking hormones and then replacing hormones isn't physical modification? Or chopping off body parts at 15 yro? In what world is that not physical modification?
I believe this is a great example of a "straw man argument". A false and easy to knock down claim is made and said to represent your opponent, then it's knocked it down and said, "see how weak your position is?".
Minors are almost never offered permanent physical modification anywhere in the world, and every effort is made to allow time for figuring things out. That's the whole point of puberty blockers, they delay potentially horrifying changes to allow a few more years to for such a major life decision.
I'm a trans person myself and have been through all of this. I've had to go over incredible hurdles with nearly everyone trying to make any gender affirming care difficult, expensive, and paid for out-of-pocket. I had to bust my ass and become and engineer so that could afford thousands in psychologists and $35K for surgery on top of living expenses.
I didn't become trans because a drag queen read me a book or trans lady made a bud light video, that's the stupidest shit I've ever heard.
I believe this is a great example of a “straw man argument”. A false and easy to knock down claim is made and said to represent your opponent, then it’s knocked it down and said, “see how weak your position is?”.
What was my false claim? That those identifying as trans are going through psychological stress because they’re uncomfortable with their bodies? If someone identifies as trans and it isn’t because they aren’t comfortable with the body they were born with and truly believe they belong to the opposite sex, I’m pretty sure that’s just cross-dressing. If the trans community truly wants acceptance and support, they need to distance themselves from those who are just “trans” for a kink or internet and social points.
Minors are almost never offered permanent physical modification …
Almost never isn’t never. It should be never.
That’s the whole point of puberty blockers, they delay potentially horrifying changes to allow a few more years to for such a major life decision.
That’s propaganda. Do you seriously believe stopping a normal biological process has no lasting effects? Even if it was true that a biological process could simply be paused, if a child is uncomfortable with their current body, would “pausing” it in that state not further make them hate themselves? Sounds like abuse to me.
I didn’t become trans because a drag queen read me a book or trans lady made a bud light video, that’s the stupidest shit I’ve ever heard.
I don’t think anyone ever has. Also, who’s straw-manning now?
Besides all that, my comment was that if you’re having psychological stress, seek psychological help, not surgical. I don’t see how that’s controversial.
Besides all that, my comment was that if you’re having psychological stress, seek psychological help, not surgical. I don’t see how that’s controversial.
Besides all that, my comment was that's already the case, if you think otherwise stop getting your news from Fox.
Literally never watch or read Fox, lol. Stop strawmanning.
Maybe not Fox specifically, but you have the same incorrect talking points as all of right-wing echo chamber.
Also
I didn’t become trans because a drag queen read me a book or trans lady made a bud light video, that’s the stupidest shit I’ve ever heard.
I don’t think anyone ever has. Also, who’s straw-manning now?
There are people going to drag shows with guns to stop drag queens from reading books to kids. There are people giving death threats regarding a trans woman making a bud light video. It's clear the implication is that the drag queens are trying to turn kids trans, recruit or spread the gay otherwise what's the problem (for the right)? So that is not a straw man, it's evidence based.
You were strawmanning me. You have no evidence that I support those actions or beliefs, which I don’t.
Ethical concerns and uncertainty: Gender affirming care for children involves making irreversible decisions that can have long-term physical, psychological, and social consequences. While it is important to prioritize the well-being of children, there is ongoing debate within the medical community regarding the appropriate age at which such interventions should be considered and whether they are in the best interest of the child. Some medical professionals argue that children may lack the cognitive maturity to fully comprehend the implications of such interventions and that it is necessary to approach these matters cautiously.
Lack of long-term research: The field of gender affirming care for children is relatively new, and there is a lack of comprehensive long-term research on the outcomes of these interventions. This means that the long-term effects, both positive and negative, of gender affirming care on children are still not fully understood. Without sufficient evidence-based data, it can be challenging to determine the best course of action and ensure that these interventions are truly beneficial and minimize harm.
Exploration and self-identity: Childhood and adolescence are periods of self-exploration and identity development. Some argue that it is crucial to allow children the freedom to explore and question their gender identity without prematurely committing to medical interventions. Taking a more cautious approach and providing supportive counseling, therapy, and non-permanent interventions may allow for a more holistic exploration of identity, taking into account the child's social, emotional, and psychological well-being.
Ethical considerations of irreversible interventions: Gender affirming care for children often involves irreversible medical interventions such as hormone therapy or surgeries. It is essential to consider the potential impact on the child's future well-being if they later question or regret the decision made during their youth. By waiting until the child reaches an age of greater maturity and self-awareness, they can make a more informed decision about their gender identity and weigh the potential consequences of irreversible interventions.
Parental rights and autonomy: Decisions regarding a child's gender affirming care should be primarily left to the parents, as they are responsible for the well-being of their children. It is important to respect the rights of parents to make decisions they believe are in the best interest of their child, as long as the child is not being subjected to harm or neglect. By allowing a diversity of perspectives and not imposing a single medical consensus, the autonomy and decision-making power of parents can be preserved.
Gender affirming care for children involves making irreversible decisions that can have long-term physical, psychological, and social consequences.
That's very misleading:
https://www.childrenshospital.org/programs/center-gender-surgery-program/eligibility-surgery
The only such permanent physical change available is top surgery, only for 15 year olds and up, and only after the following qualifications:
A letter from a medical doctor or nurse practitioner stating that you have "persistent, well documented, gender dysphoria" and specifying either the length of hormone therapy or why you are not taking hormone therapy.
A letter from a mental health provider stating that you have the capacity to consent and that any significant mental health issues are being addressed
Informed consent is a reasonable qualification for medical treatment for a something that is clearly a persistent health issue. And none of this is genital surgery.
As for "permanent psychological and social" change, that's a weird thing to take issue with given that any decision in your life could have such an effect. Go to the wrong school, choose the wrong job, wrong career, live in the wrong neighborhood, choose the wrong treatment/doctor for your cancer, thyroid issues, broken leg, cronic illness, etc, it all caries that risk. Life sucks and it has risk, it's unreasonable to expect no risk for anything, especially when it comes to medical stuff.
Lack of long-term research: The field of gender affirming care for children is relatively new, and there is a lack of comprehensive long-term research on the outcomes of these interventions.
That's a moot point because the research we do have already shows that GAC is the best option for the health of patients. Why is it the best? Because the alternative is suicide. People with gender dysphoria end up killing themselves when they don't get treatment.
Ethical considerations of irreversible interventions: Gender affirming care for children often involves irreversible medical interventions such as hormone therapy or surgeries
You are exaggerating the permanency of the hormone stuff, it takes a constant source of medication for that stuff. These things aren't overnight changes either. It takes a long while before anything like puberty blockers or HRT is even allowed, there has to be a long medical history of dysphoria prior to that. And I've already covered the misinformation about surgeries above.
Do you know what's even more permanent than all these things combined? Suicide. If I had a Trans kid I would rather have them alive. That's a bigger ethical consideration.
Parental rights and autonomy: Decisions regarding a child’s gender affirming care should be primarily left to the parents, as they are responsible for the well-being of their children.
This I can agree with, however:
By allowing a diversity of perspectives and not imposing a single medical consensus
This isn't right. I would hope you wouldn't say this about other things.
"Gravity? We shouldn't impose a single physicist consensus, we should allow a diversity of perspectives"
Science is the best tool we have for learning objectively about things, including medical. It's a bad move to value it at zero.
you will never see me here again. PEACE
A community to discuss conservative politics and views.
Rules:
No racism or bigotry.
Be civil: disagreements happen, but that doesn't provide the right to personally insult others.
No spam posting.
Submission headline should match the article title (don't cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
Shitposts and memes are allowed until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.
No trolling.