What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Arkansas SAFE act "The nation's first trial over a state's ban on gender-confirming care for children " (1 Viewer)

Wow, so much wrong here, and its almost hard to believe how wrong you are. This is basically a real issue that requires none of your usual silliness.

First off: Basically shrugging off mental health issues or minimizing them regardless of the cause is kind of obtuse on your part. Also the "we should all agree" is a pretty good straw man starter especially since it seems you have really no knowledge on the subject.

This law is not about "the kids". This law is about fearmongering. If you wanted to make a law about "the kids" how about starting with guns? Guns seem to be doing more damage to kids in school that what bathroom someone uses.

again the comparison to mental health ............ are you saying trans is a mental health disorder ?

and ummmmm we don't allow kids to buy guns or ammunition, or tobacco or alcohol, we don't let them write their own prescription drugs etc etc because they're not adults, not capable of being trusted with really important things like that, right ?
so you show that you didn’t read anything anyone posts…. KIDS DO NOT MAKE THIS DECISION BY THEMSELVES OR FLIPPANTLY. THEY MAKE THIS CHIOICE WITH THEI FAMILY AND WITH THEIR PHYSICIAN.

again, this is all about fear Mongering. Plain and simple.

You are naive and ignorant how this works in practice. Doctors are prohibited from councilling the child. They are required to affirm whatever the child says, hence the name affirmation therapy. As far as parents go, states require 'parental consent', but there are loopholes which as easily bypassed. If parents are non-accepting the child can just say the parents are hostile towards their gender identity and then parental consent is no longer required.

So the typical process of a 13-year old going into a planned parenthood facility. The kid goes in and declares they are transgendered. An activist associate goes over a questionnaire with the child and then they fax it to a doctor. The doctor reviews it and prescribes gender blockers and/or hormones. The kid walks out with drugs in about 30 minutes after their first visit.

Are you good with that process?

I know you weren't asking me, but I am not good with that process at all. For children, I think parental involvement is paramount and should be required. I think doctors should be free to counsel the kid and explore the possibility of alternative diagnoses. I think counseling and mental health consults should be part of the process prior to medical intervention. So if the process is that a 13-year-old can go to Planned Parenthood and walk out with drugs 30 minutes later with their parents being completely unaware, then I agree that more robust processes and requirements need to be put into place. But where that analysis doesn't take me to is the proposed solution that there is a blanket ban on treatment under any circumstance for anyone under the age of 18 as suggested by this proposed legislation.

Also, for what it's worth, I have a close family friend who started hormones as a teen and ultimately underwent sex reassignment surgery. The process she went through is nothing like you describe. She went to multiple counseling sessions over a period of nearly a year before starting medical intervention. She had numerous medical and mental health consults. Her parents were informed and involved every step of the way. It was a thoughtful and deliberate process that played out over time. Full disclosure - she was 18 by the time she started medical intervention, but she nevertheless went through a pretty rigorous course of evaluation before taking the steps she did. And I think it was a good thing.
Thank goodness she waited until she was 18 to start medical intervention? And she isn't messed up? Cause from what I am reading here, not starting your kids as early as possible is a horrible horrible thing to do to them. Good to hear she/he did the responsible thing and waited until adulthood to make that decision. Seems this idea CAN actually work. Who'd have thunk it?

No she's not messed up. She is doing very well. And it wasn't like she waited until age 18 as some magic number. It's just that she happened to be past 18 when she had completed her counseling and consults and everyone was comfortable moving forward. If she had started this a year earlier, she would have been under 18. So it's not the age of 18 requirement that is particularly relevant to me so much as I think there should be safeguards and consults in place to make sure that the decision to proceed with medical intervention is a deliberate and well-informed one. Also, as part of the process, she made a number of sperm donations to freeze prior to initiating treatment to allow an opportunity to have a child down the road that shares her DNA. Again, these are questions that should be thought through. I am in favor of a process similar to the one my friend went through.
Fine with that too..As long as shes an adult when she makes that decision. All good with that 100%. If a child wants to talk to counselors etc etc throughout puberty then fine. Might be helpful. But when it comes to modifications, it should wait.
 
ok, please show your work there. Show me where kids are having things cut off on put in before they are 18 and I will concede that point and agree that it is wrong to do.

why would it be wrong to do if the kid feels like they want it done and the parents/doctors agree ?
 
The leading medical authorities all agree recommend gender affirmation treatments. But supermike80 from the inter webs disagrees. I’m torn.
  • The rapid increase in the number of children requiring support and the complex case-mix means that the current clinical model, with a single national provider, is not sustainable in the longer term.
  • We need to know more about the population being referred and outcomes. There has not been routine and consistent data collection, which means it is not possible to accurately track the outcomes and pathways that children and young people take through the service.
  • There is lack of consensus and open discussion about the nature of gender dysphoria and therefore about the appropriate clinical response.
  • Because the specialist service has evolved rapidly and organically in response to demand, the clinical approach and overall service design has not been subjected to some of the normal quality controls that are typically applied when new or innovative treatments are introduced.  



What's the truth? - The majority of parents don't want what the radical left is demanding, offering and trying to push onto their kids. An extremely large cross section of parents across socioeconomic status, age, race, religion and culture will just plain vote against it. Their numbers are too overwhelming to try to surmount. The Virginia gubernatorial election was a test case of this in effect.
I disagree with the rest of what you said, but agree with you here. Fear mongering requires people be worried about this happening to them or their kids. Creating a fear based platform is the only way for the right to win elections now (that and suppressing the vote) so they don't really deal with "real issues" they just make them up. Critical race theory and this transgender dust up all happen to be coming from the same person, using the same language. Again, John Oliver already exposed this but by all means, continue marching to that beat.
ugh.....The bias here is so gross. The right is the only platform using fear? I HATE biased positions like this, the person posting them shows no credibility whatsoever going forward.
Keep watching John Oliver though...It seems to be helping your bias
whatever. Prove me wrong that this is not a fear based non issue along with the trans bathroom debate and all that other culture war nonsense. That is all it is. You want to cover the sun with one finger, that's on you. Sure the left has "fear based issues as well", gun control being one of them, but in the case of gun control I know people who have been hurt by guns, I don't know anyone who has been hurt bc their kid underwent this process.
 
50% is a made up number that the media has forced on you. And what does "support trans people" mean exactly?
It is actually a made up number by me. I wasn't trying to be exact, just saying it was an issue where large portions of the country have differing views. NPR has a poll that shows overall 47% oppose or somewhat oppose laws preventing transgender youth from accessing gender transition care. So I don't think 50% was far off but my point wasn't in the details.

We don't need to meet a serial killer or a hitman to get their side of the story because people overwhelmingly agree that it's wrong. If we are talking about abortion, trans care, religious groups or religious rights, immigration, gun laws, etc. then that's a different story. We should openly investigate the issue, hear out people's POVs and be open to accepting we aren't completely right on the issue. If 100 million Americans disagree with me about something, I probably should be open minded to it and ultimately side on whatever offers the most individual liberty. Not because I necessarily agree that it's right for me but because so many fellow citizens believe it is right for them.

For example, I was in favor of the COVID vax and got it as soon as I could. I encouraged others. However, I also don't think the governments should force people to receive it. I think those people are mistaken for not getting it and I would encourage efforts to convince them but not to force them. I have the same stance here. Nothing wrong with being opposed to transgender care for youths and nothing wrong with trying to spread that ideology peacefully. However, laws forcing that ideology on people is against the idea that people and families should have the final say on such personal issues. Put the information out there and let people/families decide for themselves. They are the ones who have to live with the results for better or worse.

If one believes so deeply about the issue, they should really go and meet doctors, parents of trans people, trans people, etc. I have shared my story of my niece here before. I don't know what I thought about this issue before her- I certainly cracked jokes and maybe didn't take it so seriously. Getting to know her from birth and seeing her evolution has completely changed the way I see it and think about it. Maybe I am a lame humanist but in my mind, it isn't fair to make massive judgments about people whom I have never interacted with. A news story or a politicians speech or even a study pale in comparison to getting to know people who have first hand experience.
 
ok, please show your work there. Show me where kids are having things cut off on put in before they are 18 and I will concede that point and agree that it is wrong to do.

why would it be wrong to do if the kid feels like they want it done and the parents/doctors agree ?
Again, you have to show you work and show where this IS being done. I'm not doing the hypothetical game until you answer the first part.
 
The leading medical authorities all agree recommend gender affirmation treatments. But supermike80 from the inter webs disagrees. I’m torn.
  • The rapid increase in the number of children requiring support and the complex case-mix means that the current clinical model, with a single national provider, is not sustainable in the longer term.
  • We need to know more about the population being referred and outcomes. There has not been routine and consistent data collection, which means it is not possible to accurately track the outcomes and pathways that children and young people take through the service.
  • There is lack of consensus and open discussion about the nature of gender dysphoria and therefore about the appropriate clinical response.
  • Because the specialist service has evolved rapidly and organically in response to demand, the clinical approach and overall service design has not been subjected to some of the normal quality controls that are typically applied when new or innovative treatments are introduced.  



What's the truth? - The majority of parents don't want what the radical left is demanding, offering and trying to push onto their kids. An extremely large cross section of parents across socioeconomic status, age, race, religion and culture will just plain vote against it. Their numbers are too overwhelming to try to surmount. The Virginia gubernatorial election was a test case of this in effect.
I disagree with the rest of what you said, but agree with you here. Fear mongering requires people be worried about this happening to them or their kids. Creating a fear based platform is the only way for the right to win elections now (that and suppressing the vote) so they don't really deal with "real issues" they just make them up. Critical race theory and this transgender dust up all happen to be coming from the same person, using the same language. Again, John Oliver already exposed this but by all means, continue marching to that beat.
ugh.....The bias here is so gross. The right is the only platform using fear? I HATE biased positions like this, the person posting them shows no credibility whatsoever going forward.
Keep watching John Oliver though...It seems to be helping your bias
whatever. Prove me wrong that this is not a fear based non issue along with the trans bathroom debate and all that other culture war nonsense. That is all it is. You want to cover the sun with one finger, that's on you. Sure the left has "fear based issues as well", gun control being one of them, but in the case of gun control I know people who have been hurt by guns, I don't know anyone who has been hurt bc their kid underwent this process.
Didn't say it wasn't. What I said was its absurd to imply only the right uses fear based politics. That's just dumb.
 
Depends on the age. I think they should have guidance and a very strong input on medical decisions. Children at 14 tend to be considered old enough to choose which parent they want to live with in cases of split custody. Many States allow students to drop out of school at 16. I don’t think there is one clear age where there is total agreement on when kids can or can’t make important decisions with far ranging impact.

why guidance and why strong input ? because they're kids - not adults, not capable ... and we see many things they're not allowed to choose on because of that

this trans Act in Arkansas is but one more they're not going to be allowed to choose because as we know, kids are very easily influenced, coerced, intimidated, moved, flighty, hormonal and every other words that accurately describe a child/kids mental states

if a kid really really shows trans behavior, get counseling, get what the kid needs now but wait until 18 so everyone knows for sure it isn't just a stage, a fad, a chic thing, or any other numerous things that causes the showing .... at 18, they're adult and choose on their own
 
Depends on the age. I think they should have guidance and a very strong input on medical decisions. Children at 14 tend to be considered old enough to choose which parent they want to live with in cases of split custody. Many States allow students to drop out of school at 16. I don’t think there is one clear age where there is total agreement on when kids can or can’t make important decisions with far ranging impact.

why guidance and why strong input ? because they're kids - not adults, not capable ... and we see many things they're not allowed to choose on because of that

this trans Act in Arkansas is but one more they're not going to be allowed to choose because as we know, kids are very easily influenced, coerced, intimidated, moved, flighty, hormonal and every other words that accurately describe a child/kids mental states

if a kid really really shows trans behavior, get counseling, get what the kid needs now but wait until 18 so everyone knows for sure it isn't just a stage, a fad, a chic thing, or any other numerous things that causes the showing .... at 18, they're adult and choose on their own
That's ALL I am saying here. But the push is so strong to get these kids modified at a young age. I don't understand it at all.
 
50% is a made up number that the media has forced on you. And what does "support trans people" mean exactly?
It is actually a made up number by me. I wasn't trying to be exact, just saying it was an issue where large portions of the country have differing views. NPR has a poll that shows overall 47% oppose or somewhat oppose laws preventing transgender youth from accessing gender transition care. So I don't think 50% was far off but my point wasn't in the details.
This is why polls are dumb. Always and forever. You can have 90% of people against transgender care, but will back off from laws against it. For reasons unrelated to the actual thing being legislated. I never, ever, ever trust polls. About anything, ever.
If CNN and FOX news do the same poll, they will come out with completely different outcomes. I promise that.
 
When I see people attacking jon, I think of the above quote. Some people want to ridicule jon, and some would violently oppose him if they could get away with it, but the truth will always be self evident in the end.

What's the truth? - The majority of parents don't want what the radical left is demanding, offering and trying to push onto their kids. An extremely large cross section of parents across socioeconomic status, age, race, religion and culture will just plain vote against it. Their numbers are too overwhelming to try to surmount. The Virginia gubernatorial election was a test case of this in effect.

The more information jon presents, the more desperate the attacks on him will get. How many elections will Team Blue have to lose for the truth of this issue to become self evident to the zealot induced radical Big Blue base?
So, this issue is about winning elections? It is not about any children. At least for the right side of the aisle? Thus you think that "team blue" is embracing a politically disadvantaged position. Says a lot!


"I'm done with the tablets, I've given them as much as I can give them. They're just too undependable for me. I'm just gonna stick with pictures for me because there just isn't enough consistency in the performance of the tablet. So I just can't take it anymore." - Bill Belichick


Microsoft and NFL HQ can spin, cajole, cry and plead all they want but Angry Bill was not going to keep using that Surface Tablet.

No amount of logical fallacy bombing, gas lighting, shaming, cancel culture, woke, identity politics and shock marketing is going to convince the majority of parents to be OK with loose standards/ loose casual restrictions on this issue. It's just not going to happen.

Are you actual going to run a purity test on "winning elections"?

To get the kind of public policy you want, you need to win lots of elections to get the majorities you need to pass the laws you desire, thus creating a pathway for practical public administration effectively working on the back end of said policy.

"Winning Elections" has direct correlation to the impact of potential public policy and practical public administration. It is a consistent fundamental reality of our Republic. You cannot effect widespread changes without considered measured logistical support systems.

Do you understand that you just ran a purity test on actual democratic processes?

Do you know whom else are the only other groups on the face of the entire planet that also consistently does this? Terrorists.
 
why guidance and why strong input ? because they're kids - not adults, not capable ... and we see many things they're not allowed to choose on because of that

this trans Act in Arkansas is but one more they're not going to be allowed to choose because as we know, kids are very easily influenced, coerced, intimidated, moved, flighty, hormonal and every other words that accurately describe a child/kids mental states

if a kid really really shows trans behavior, get counseling, get what the kid needs now but wait until 18 so everyone knows for sure it isn't just a stage, a fad, a chic thing, or any other numerous things that causes the showing .... at 18, they're adult and choose on their own
I think every case is different and I am not going to be the judge of what is the right thing to do in some hypothetical situation or a situation that I am not a part of. I would prefer the families, kids and doctors make these decisions and not the State legislature. That is pretty much where I am going to side on any medical issue. Every time.
 
You like to use the word illness, I use the word condition that needs to be managed. As a doctor, many conditions cannot be cured, simply managed. In any and all those cases, government does not intervene. It is up to the patient, their parents, and the doctor. We can look at this logically as a spectrum of choices and when does the government have a say or should they:
On one side we have real issues: Cancer, Pediatric Diabetes, ie life threatening conditions. On the other side we have a contact lens fitting. Putting a kid into a contact lens in no way is the same as a cancer treatment, but it is putting something into their body (in this case a class II medical device) that can have side effects (where a pair of glasses do not). On the entirety of this spectrum (ADD treatment likely falls somewhere in the middle) the government does not take the decisions for these conditions out of the hands of the patient, their parents, or their doctor. The only time they do is abortion and now this. Why? Abortion I can see the reasoning: the "unborn (as ou put it)" has no say, but here? Everyone is having a say.

Makes. No. Sense. Unless you see it as what it is: a political grandstanding moment instead of actual care for the person involved.


cancer is a condition now ? comparing transitioning to contact lenses ?

I can't follow you on either of those, sorry, they make zero sense to me

Here is how I raised my kids .... I listened to them, and then I made decisions I thought was best for them and their input didn't matter just a whole lot. Sexting? No, and I don't care how badly they felt they needed to. Porn? No, I don't care how much they wanted it. Sleepovers with boys at 12 or 13 years old? No, my daughter wasn't allowed, I don't care how she was feeling. I could list on and on all the things my son and daughters wanted/felt ......... they were wrong, they were just kids and didn't know any better

Abortion is literally killing a living unborn human ........... if you cannot understand the simple process of what an abortion is, then i don't expect you to disagree with it I guess.
 
This is why polls are dumb. Always and forever. You can have 90% of people against transgender care, but will back off from laws against it. For reasons unrelated to the actual thing being legislated. I never, ever, ever trust polls. About anything, ever.
If CNN and FOX news do the same poll, they will come out with completely different outcomes. I promise that.
That is the least significant part of my post. Certainly there is no disagreement that it is a controversial issue with millions and millions of Americans taking a wide variety of views, often totally polar from each other. This isn't something where people are in near lockstep or we wouldn't be having this conversation.
 
I think every case is different and I am not going to be the judge of what is the right thing to do in some hypothetical situation or a situation that I am not a part of. I would prefer the families, kids and doctors make these decisions and not the State legislature. That is pretty much where I am going to side on any medical issue. Every time.


or


wait until they're 18 and make decisions themselves which is what Arkansas is proposing
 
why guidance and why strong input ? because they're kids - not adults, not capable ... and we see many things they're not allowed to choose on because of that

this trans Act in Arkansas is but one more they're not going to be allowed to choose because as we know, kids are very easily influenced, coerced, intimidated, moved, flighty, hormonal and every other words that accurately describe a child/kids mental states

if a kid really really shows trans behavior, get counseling, get what the kid needs now but wait until 18 so everyone knows for sure it isn't just a stage, a fad, a chic thing, or any other numerous things that causes the showing .... at 18, they're adult and choose on their own
I think every case is different and I am not going to be the judge of what is the right thing to do in some hypothetical situation or a situation that I am not a part of. I would prefer the families, kids and doctors make these decisions and not the State legislature. That is pretty much where I am going to side on any medical issue. Every time.
Fair position. As long as you acknowledge I can disagree and say there are times when the government does need to get involved. Because there are parents out there who are whack jobs and need someone to tell them what to do, because they will not or can not act in the best interests of the child.
 
This is why polls are dumb. Always and forever. You can have 90% of people against transgender care, but will back off from laws against it. For reasons unrelated to the actual thing being legislated. I never, ever, ever trust polls. About anything, ever.
If CNN and FOX news do the same poll, they will come out with completely different outcomes. I promise that.
That is the least significant part of my post. Certainly there is no disagreement that it is a controversial issue with millions and millions of Americans taking a wide variety of views, often totally polar from each other. This isn't something where people are in near lockstep or we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Well 50% says near lockstep...so I disagree with your push back on that
 
Fair position. As long as you acknowledge I can disagree and say there are times when the government does need to get involved. Because there are parents out there who are whack jobs and need someone to tell them what to do, because they will not or can not act in the best interests of the child.
I would like to hope that would be the doctors or CPS who can step in and evaluate the individual situation for abuse. I don't want a one size fits all legislative decision because if we are talking about places full of whack jobs that don't act in the best interest of people, our legislative branches have plenty of those as well.
 
Fair position. As long as you acknowledge I can disagree and say there are times when the government does need to get involved. Because there are parents out there who are whack jobs and need someone to tell them what to do, because they will not or can not act in the best interests of the child.
I would like to hope that would be the doctors or CPS who can step in and evaluate the individual situation for abuse. I don't want a one size fits all legislative decision because if we are talking about places full of whack jobs that don't act in the best interest of people, our legislative branches have plenty of those as well.
Legislators respond to the voters.
Maybe your made up 50% number is real and if that's the case, it won't be long before all laws regarding restricting transgender modifications will be off the books. Then it will be a moot point.
 
Legislators respond to the voters.
Maybe your made up 50% number is real and if that's the case, it won't be long before all laws regarding restricting transgender modifications will be off the books. Then it will be a moot point.
I don't think it is 50% by State obviously. Also, legislators don't respond to voters. Some of the most popular positions life legalized or even medical marijuana haven't been addressed by the US or many State legislatures. That is our own fault though for poor voting choices but our legislators are not very responsive to voter wishes. They are far more respondent to donors.
 
You like to use the word illness, I use the word condition that needs to be managed. As a doctor, many conditions cannot be cured, simply managed. In any and all those cases, government does not intervene. It is up to the patient, their parents, and the doctor. We can look at this logically as a spectrum of choices and when does the government have a say or should they:
On one side we have real issues: Cancer, Pediatric Diabetes, ie life threatening conditions. On the other side we have a contact lens fitting. Putting a kid into a contact lens in no way is the same as a cancer treatment, but it is putting something into their body (in this case a class II medical device) that can have side effects (where a pair of glasses do not). On the entirety of this spectrum (ADD treatment likely falls somewhere in the middle) the government does not take the decisions for these conditions out of the hands of the patient, their parents, or their doctor. The only time they do is abortion and now this. Why? Abortion I can see the reasoning: the "unborn (as ou put it)" has no say, but here? Everyone is having a say.

Makes. No. Sense. Unless you see it as what it is: a political grandstanding moment instead of actual care for the person involved.


cancer is a condition now ? comparing transitioning to contact lenses ?

I can't follow you on either of those, sorry, they make zero sense to me
Again, you may be the type of patient I have to speak to really slowly if you do not get what I am saying here. All of these things are conditions that require a treatment plan. What they are treating is a matter of degree. Some are life threatening and require acute and immediate treatment while others are not and in some cases are not threatening the heath of the patient. In treating any condition, from cancer down to Myopia you weigh the risks vs the benefits of a treatment program. You present that to the parent and to the child as well and you , as a doctor advise them as to the risks and benefits of any treatment program (this is called informed consent). The parents usually make the call here, but when the child needs to "buy in" to the treatment plan (ie taking their meds, watching what they eat (diabetes) or insertion and removal of a contact lens (or even wearing their glasses)). This is what I mean when I talk about this issue. In every case of treating any condition the government does not actively impede the doctor patient relationship. The only time it does is for 1) Abortion and 2) this particular topic. As I said before (and will repeat because either you do not get it or are intentionally being obtuse) I understand the abortion reasoning even as I disagree with it. "the "unborn" does not have a say in the process, so someone needs to speak for them so the anti-abortion people take up their cause, so to speak.

With a Trans issue the child is not "unborn" so they have a say in their decision here. Their parents and their doctors are there to affirm or deny the treatment plan much like they are with any other condition to be treated. However, for some reason the government (and more specifically right aligned people in government) have decided that this condition is the one they must step in and regulate where in all other cases they leave this up to the actual parties involved in the decision. I'm saying that regardless of where you stand on this issue, taking the decision away from the stakeholders makes no sense. Period, end of story.
 
No I don't. Not at all. I have made my position crystal clear. I couldn't be more direct about it than I have.
I know where you stand on the topic here but I still insist you are somewhat ignorant on the topic if you don't have any personal experience. Nothing can replace real human interaction, seeing something from the front line.
 
Legislators respond to the voters.
Maybe your made up 50% number is real and if that's the case, it won't be long before all laws regarding restricting transgender modifications will be off the books. Then it will be a moot point.
I don't think it is 50% by State obviously. Also, legislators don't respond to voters. Some of the most popular positions life legalized or even medical marijuana haven't been addressed by the US or many State legislatures. That is our own fault though for poor voting choices but our legislators are not very responsive to voter wishes. They are far more respondent to donors.
I don't think it's 50% at all. I don't think that number is anywhere near close to the truth. But that's my opinion. And legislatures are respondent to both voters and donors. We have that voting thing. Donors are strong on both sides.
 
Wow, so much wrong here, and its almost hard to believe how wrong you are. This is basically a real issue that requires none of your usual silliness.

First off: Basically shrugging off mental health issues or minimizing them regardless of the cause is kind of obtuse on your part. Also the "we should all agree" is a pretty good straw man starter especially since it seems you have really no knowledge on the subject.

This law is not about "the kids". This law is about fearmongering. If you wanted to make a law about "the kids" how about starting with guns? Guns seem to be doing more damage to kids in school that what bathroom someone uses.

again the comparison to mental health ............ are you saying trans is a mental health disorder ?

and ummmmm we don't allow kids to buy guns or ammunition, or tobacco or alcohol, we don't let them write their own prescription drugs etc etc because they're not adults, not capable of being trusted with really important things like that, right ?
so you show that you didn’t read anything anyone posts…. KIDS DO NOT MAKE THIS DECISION BY THEMSELVES OR FLIPPANTLY. THEY MAKE THIS CHIOICE WITH THEI FAMILY AND WITH THEIR PHYSICIAN.

again, this is all about fear Mongering. Plain and simple.

You are naive and ignorant how this works in practice. Doctors are prohibited from councilling the child. They are required to affirm whatever the child says, hence the name affirmation therapy. As far as parents go, states require 'parental consent', but there are loopholes which as easily bypassed. If parents are non-accepting the child can just say the parents are hostile towards their gender identity and then parental consent is no longer required.

So the typical process of a 13-year old going into a planned parenthood facility. The kid goes in and declares they are transgendered. An activist associate goes over a questionnaire with the child and then they fax it to a doctor. The doctor reviews it and prescribes gender blockers and/or hormones. The kid walks out with drugs in about 30 minutes after their first visit.

Are you good with that process?

I know you weren't asking me, but I am not good with that process at all. For children, I think parental involvement is paramount and should be required. I think doctors should be free to counsel the kid and explore the possibility of alternative diagnoses. I think counseling and mental health consults should be part of the process prior to medical intervention. So if the process is that a 13-year-old can go to Planned Parenthood and walk out with drugs 30 minutes later with their parents being completely unaware, then I agree that more robust processes and requirements need to be put into place. But where that analysis doesn't take me to is the proposed solution that there is a blanket ban on treatment under any circumstance for anyone under the age of 18 as suggested by this proposed legislation.

Also, for what it's worth, I have a close family friend who started hormones as a teen and ultimately underwent sex reassignment surgery. The process she went through is nothing like you describe. She went to multiple counseling sessions over a period of nearly a year before starting medical intervention. She had numerous medical and mental health consults. Her parents were informed and involved every step of the way. It was a thoughtful and deliberate process that played out over time. Full disclosure - she was 18 by the time she started medical intervention, but she nevertheless went through a pretty rigorous course of evaluation before taking the steps she did. And I think it was a good thing.
This seems like a very reasonable take that respects the rights of everyone involved and the health of transgender children. In a perfect world, you could find wide support for laws/regulations like this. The discussion is so politicized that there is no sensible conversation anymore. I wish more people were open to different opinions on this subject. It is the long term health (both mental and physical) of the children that I think we are all concerned about. We need to be open to the idea that our own opinion is not necessarily correct.
 
You like to use the word illness, I use the word condition that needs to be managed. As a doctor, many conditions cannot be cured, simply managed. In any and all those cases, government does not intervene. It is up to the patient, their parents, and the doctor. We can look at this logically as a spectrum of choices and when does the government have a say or should they:
On one side we have real issues: Cancer, Pediatric Diabetes, ie life threatening conditions. On the other side we have a contact lens fitting. Putting a kid into a contact lens in no way is the same as a cancer treatment, but it is putting something into their body (in this case a class II medical device) that can have side effects (where a pair of glasses do not). On the entirety of this spectrum (ADD treatment likely falls somewhere in the middle) the government does not take the decisions for these conditions out of the hands of the patient, their parents, or their doctor. The only time they do is abortion and now this. Why? Abortion I can see the reasoning: the "unborn (as ou put it)" has no say, but here? Everyone is having a say.

Makes. No. Sense. Unless you see it as what it is: a political grandstanding moment instead of actual care for the person involved.


cancer is a condition now ? comparing transitioning to contact lenses ?

I can't follow you on either of those, sorry, they make zero sense to me
Again, you may be the type of patient I have to speak to really slowly if you do not get what I am saying here. All of these things are conditions that require a treatment plan. What they are treating is a matter of degree. Some are life threatening and require acute and immediate treatment while others are not and in some cases are not threatening the heath of the patient. In treating any condition, from cancer down to Myopia you weigh the risks vs the benefits of a treatment program. You present that to the parent and to the child as well and you , as a doctor advise them as to the risks and benefits of any treatment program (this is called informed consent). The parents usually make the call here, but when the child needs to "buy in" to the treatment plan (ie taking their meds, watching what they eat (diabetes) or insertion and removal of a contact lens (or even wearing their glasses)). This is what I mean when I talk about this issue. In every case of treating any condition the government does not actively impede the doctor patient relationship. The only time it does is for 1) Abortion and 2) this particular topic. As I said before (and will repeat because either you do not get it or are intentionally being obtuse) I understand the abortion reasoning even as I disagree with it. "the "unborn" does not have a say in the process, so someone needs to speak for them so the anti-abortion people take up their cause, so to speak.

With a Trans issue the child is not "unborn" so they have a say in their decision here. Their parents and their doctors are there to affirm or deny the treatment plan much like they are with any other condition to be treated. However, for some reason the government (and more specifically right aligned people in government) have decided that this condition is the one they must step in and regulate where in all other cases they leave this up to the actual parties involved in the decision. I'm saying that regardless of where you stand on this issue, taking the decision away from the stakeholders makes no sense. Period, end of story.
Disagree. Again, it isn't the end of the story. For every doctor that agrees with changing a child's gender medically, I promise you I can find a doctor who would be against it. The issue is parents, who already want to get this thing done, are going to actively search for a doctor that supports their position. To think otherwise is just silly
 
Wow, so much wrong here, and its almost hard to believe how wrong you are. This is basically a real issue that requires none of your usual silliness.

First off: Basically shrugging off mental health issues or minimizing them regardless of the cause is kind of obtuse on your part. Also the "we should all agree" is a pretty good straw man starter especially since it seems you have really no knowledge on the subject.

This law is not about "the kids". This law is about fearmongering. If you wanted to make a law about "the kids" how about starting with guns? Guns seem to be doing more damage to kids in school that what bathroom someone uses.

again the comparison to mental health ............ are you saying trans is a mental health disorder ?

and ummmmm we don't allow kids to buy guns or ammunition, or tobacco or alcohol, we don't let them write their own prescription drugs etc etc because they're not adults, not capable of being trusted with really important things like that, right ?
so you show that you didn’t read anything anyone posts…. KIDS DO NOT MAKE THIS DECISION BY THEMSELVES OR FLIPPANTLY. THEY MAKE THIS CHIOICE WITH THEI FAMILY AND WITH THEIR PHYSICIAN.

again, this is all about fear Mongering. Plain and simple.

You are naive and ignorant how this works in practice. Doctors are prohibited from councilling the child. They are required to affirm whatever the child says, hence the name affirmation therapy. As far as parents go, states require 'parental consent', but there are loopholes which as easily bypassed. If parents are non-accepting the child can just say the parents are hostile towards their gender identity and then parental consent is no longer required.

So the typical process of a 13-year old going into a planned parenthood facility. The kid goes in and declares they are transgendered. An activist associate goes over a questionnaire with the child and then they fax it to a doctor. The doctor reviews it and prescribes gender blockers and/or hormones. The kid walks out with drugs in about 30 minutes after their first visit.

Are you good with that process?

I know you weren't asking me, but I am not good with that process at all. For children, I think parental involvement is paramount and should be required. I think doctors should be free to counsel the kid and explore the possibility of alternative diagnoses. I think counseling and mental health consults should be part of the process prior to medical intervention. So if the process is that a 13-year-old can go to Planned Parenthood and walk out with drugs 30 minutes later with their parents being completely unaware, then I agree that more robust processes and requirements need to be put into place. But where that analysis doesn't take me to is the proposed solution that there is a blanket ban on treatment under any circumstance for anyone under the age of 18 as suggested by this proposed legislation.

Also, for what it's worth, I have a close family friend who started hormones as a teen and ultimately underwent sex reassignment surgery. The process she went through is nothing like you describe. She went to multiple counseling sessions over a period of nearly a year before starting medical intervention. She had numerous medical and mental health consults. Her parents were informed and involved every step of the way. It was a thoughtful and deliberate process that played out over time. Full disclosure - she was 18 by the time she started medical intervention, but she nevertheless went through a pretty rigorous course of evaluation before taking the steps she did. And I think it was a good thing.
This seems like a very reasonable take that respects the rights of everyone involved and the health of transgender children. In a perfect world, you could find wide support for laws/regulations like this. The discussion is so politicized that there is no sensible conversation anymore. I wish more people were open to different opinions on this subject. It is the long term health (both mental and physical) of the children that I think we are all concerned about. We need to be open to the idea that our own opinion is not necessarily correct.
I am. 100%. You wanna do this to your kid, have at it. But I disagree with it and am willing to say so. And vote for those that agree with my position on it. That's how it works.
 
Disagree. Again, it isn't the end of the story. For every doctor that agrees with changing a child's gender medically, I promise you I can find a doctor who would be against it. The issue is parents, who already want to get this thing done, are going to actively search for a doctor that supports their position. To think otherwise is just silly
Well, I'm sure this is false. I'm sure this is more like climate change, where 90% of the scientists agree with the issue and about 3-5% disagree. When the AMA, the American academy of pediatrics, and NATA all agree on something it is not because it is a 50/50 proposition.

Also, you are giving docs a real bad rap here. Most doctors are not twirling their mustaches trying to turn boys into girls, or girls into boys. While this is not my discipline, plenty of people come into my practice wanting things that may or may not be in their best interests. My job is to try and talk them out of it, or at least explain the risks and have them make an informed decision that includes all the risks involved. As stated above by Bigbottom, there is a whole litany of things that the patient in question has to go through before we get to prescribing anything, so again, not sure what you are trying to prove here other than you don't really understand this issue or doctors very well.
 
Wow, so much wrong here, and its almost hard to believe how wrong you are. This is basically a real issue that requires none of your usual silliness.

First off: Basically shrugging off mental health issues or minimizing them regardless of the cause is kind of obtuse on your part. Also the "we should all agree" is a pretty good straw man starter especially since it seems you have really no knowledge on the subject.

This law is not about "the kids". This law is about fearmongering. If you wanted to make a law about "the kids" how about starting with guns? Guns seem to be doing more damage to kids in school that what bathroom someone uses.

again the comparison to mental health ............ are you saying trans is a mental health disorder ?

and ummmmm we don't allow kids to buy guns or ammunition, or tobacco or alcohol, we don't let them write their own prescription drugs etc etc because they're not adults, not capable of being trusted with really important things like that, right ?
so you show that you didn’t read anything anyone posts…. KIDS DO NOT MAKE THIS DECISION BY THEMSELVES OR FLIPPANTLY. THEY MAKE THIS CHIOICE WITH THEI FAMILY AND WITH THEIR PHYSICIAN.

again, this is all about fear Mongering. Plain and simple.

You are naive and ignorant how this works in practice. Doctors are prohibited from councilling the child. They are required to affirm whatever the child says, hence the name affirmation therapy. As far as parents go, states require 'parental consent', but there are loopholes which as easily bypassed. If parents are non-accepting the child can just say the parents are hostile towards their gender identity and then parental consent is no longer required.

So the typical process of a 13-year old going into a planned parenthood facility. The kid goes in and declares they are transgendered. An activist associate goes over a questionnaire with the child and then they fax it to a doctor. The doctor reviews it and prescribes gender blockers and/or hormones. The kid walks out with drugs in about 30 minutes after their first visit.

Are you good with that process?

I know you weren't asking me, but I am not good with that process at all. For children, I think parental involvement is paramount and should be required. I think doctors should be free to counsel the kid and explore the possibility of alternative diagnoses. I think counseling and mental health consults should be part of the process prior to medical intervention. So if the process is that a 13-year-old can go to Planned Parenthood and walk out with drugs 30 minutes later with their parents being completely unaware, then I agree that more robust processes and requirements need to be put into place. But where that analysis doesn't take me to is the proposed solution that there is a blanket ban on treatment under any circumstance for anyone under the age of 18 as suggested by this proposed legislation.

Also, for what it's worth, I have a close family friend who started hormones as a teen and ultimately underwent sex reassignment surgery. The process she went through is nothing like you describe. She went to multiple counseling sessions over a period of nearly a year before starting medical intervention. She had numerous medical and mental health consults. Her parents were informed and involved every step of the way. It was a thoughtful and deliberate process that played out over time. Full disclosure - she was 18 by the time she started medical intervention, but she nevertheless went through a pretty rigorous course of evaluation before taking the steps she did. And I think it was a good thing.
This seems like a very reasonable take that respects the rights of everyone involved and the health of transgender children. In a perfect world, you could find wide support for laws/regulations like this. The discussion is so politicized that there is no sensible conversation anymore. I wish more people were open to different opinions on this subject. It is the long term health (both mental and physical) of the children that I think we are all concerned about. We need to be open to the idea that our own opinion is not necessarily correct.
I am. 100%. You wanna do this to your kid, have at it. But I disagree with it and am willing to say so. And vote for those that agree with my position on it. That's how it works.
Didn't you say earlier that you are never going to change your mind on this subject?

Argue all day man..Never changing my mind. ANY kind of gender modifications to any child under 18 is wrong in my opinion. Plain and simple.
 
Disagree. Again, it isn't the end of the story. For every doctor that agrees with changing a child's gender medically, I promise you I can find a doctor who would be against it. The issue is parents, who already want to get this thing done, are going to actively search for a doctor that supports their position. To think otherwise is just silly
Well, I'm sure this is false. I'm sure this is more like climate change, where 90% of the scientists agree with the issue and about 3-5% disagree. When the AMA, the American academy of pediatrics, and NATA all agree on something it is not because it is a 50/50 proposition.

Also, you are giving docs a real bad rap here. Most doctors are not twirling their mustaches trying to turn boys into girls, or girls into boys. While this is not my discipline, plenty of people come into my practice wanting things that may or may not be in their best interests. My job is to try and talk them out of it, or at least explain the risks and have them make an informed decision that includes all the risks involved. As stated above by Bigbottom, there is a whole litany of things that the patient in question has to go through before we get to prescribing anything, so again, not sure what you are trying to prove here other than you don't really understand this issue or doctors very well.
If you're a doctor that supports this mutilation, and you have a parent and a child that want this mutilation, you are far far more likely to approve this mutilation. If you're a doctor who does not support this mutilation, you are far far more willing to not support it.
And your 90% is made up gobbelygook. Prove that number
 
I am. 100%. You wanna do this to your kid, have at it. But I disagree with it and am willing to say so. And vote for those that agree with my position on it. That's how it works.
So you want us to have a personal choice but not have a personal choice? Not sure what you are railing against; Confused kids? Evil parents? Slimy doctors? You are not willing to believe that these people can come to this decision simply in good faith? There has to be an "evil they" in this subject?
 
Disagree. Again, it isn't the end of the story. For every doctor that agrees with changing a child's gender medically, I promise you I can find a doctor who would be against it. The issue is parents, who already want to get this thing done, are going to actively search for a doctor that supports their position. To think otherwise is just silly
Well, I'm sure this is false. I'm sure this is more like climate change, where 90% of the scientists agree with the issue and about 3-5% disagree. When the AMA, the American academy of pediatrics, and NATA all agree on something it is not because it is a 50/50 proposition.

Also, you are giving docs a real bad rap here. Most doctors are not twirling their mustaches trying to turn boys into girls, or girls into boys. While this is not my discipline, plenty of people come into my practice wanting things that may or may not be in their best interests. My job is to try and talk them out of it, or at least explain the risks and have them make an informed decision that includes all the risks involved. As stated above by Bigbottom, there is a whole litany of things that the patient in question has to go through before we get to prescribing anything, so again, not sure what you are trying to prove here other than you don't really understand this issue or doctors very well.
If you're a doctor that supports this mutilation, and you have a parent and a child that want this mutilation, you are far far more likely to approve this mutilation. If you're a doctor who does not support this mutilation, you are far far more willing to not support it.
And your 90% is made up gobbelygook. Prove that number
prove yours first. Again, the AMA, the AAoP, and NARA all agree with gender affirming care. Show me the medical group that is against it and then we can compare numbers.

I've been and have been to plenty of doctors both for and against certain types of care. They always (outside of pill mills) tend to have some trepidation about doing anything. Thats why we go to school for this stuff...
 
I am. 100%. You wanna do this to your kid, have at it. But I disagree with it and am willing to say so. And vote for those that agree with my position on it. That's how it works.
So you want us to have a personal choice but not have a personal choice? Not sure what you are railing against; Confused kids? Evil parents? Slimy doctors? You are not willing to believe that these people can come to this decision simply in good faith? There has to be an "evil they" in this subject?
Nope. You can come to it however you want. It's still mutilation of a child. However if that;s something you believe in, go for it.I'm not railing against anything. I'm stating my opinion on it. It really is that simple.
 
Disagree. Again, it isn't the end of the story. For every doctor that agrees with changing a child's gender medically, I promise you I can find a doctor who would be against it. The issue is parents, who already want to get this thing done, are going to actively search for a doctor that supports their position. To think otherwise is just silly
Well, I'm sure this is false. I'm sure this is more like climate change, where 90% of the scientists agree with the issue and about 3-5% disagree. When the AMA, the American academy of pediatrics, and NATA all agree on something it is not because it is a 50/50 proposition.

Also, you are giving docs a real bad rap here. Most doctors are not twirling their mustaches trying to turn boys into girls, or girls into boys. While this is not my discipline, plenty of people come into my practice wanting things that may or may not be in their best interests. My job is to try and talk them out of it, or at least explain the risks and have them make an informed decision that includes all the risks involved. As stated above by Bigbottom, there is a whole litany of things that the patient in question has to go through before we get to prescribing anything, so again, not sure what you are trying to prove here other than you don't really understand this issue or doctors very well.
If you're a doctor that supports this mutilation, and you have a parent and a child that want this mutilation, you are far far more likely to approve this mutilation. If you're a doctor who does not support this mutilation, you are far far more willing to not support it.
And your 90% is made up gobbelygook. Prove that number
prove yours first. Again, the AMA, the AAoP, and NARA all agree with gender affirming care. Show me the medical group that is against it and then we can compare numbers.

I've been and have been to plenty of doctors both for and against certain types of care. They always (outside of pill mills) tend to have some trepidation about doing anything. Thats why we go to school for this stuff...
I'm not going to google search a doctor or medical professional who thinks this is a bad idea. I don't have to. If you firmly believe that all doctors agree with this, well then we can't go any further here.
 
I am. 100%. You wanna do this to your kid, have at it. But I disagree with it and am willing to say so. And vote for those that agree with my position on it. That's how it works.
So you want us to have a personal choice but not have a personal choice? Not sure what you are railing against; Confused kids? Evil parents? Slimy doctors? You are not willing to believe that these people can come to this decision simply in good faith? There has to be an "evil they" in this subject?
Nope. You can come to it however you want. It's still mutilation of a child. However if that;s something you believe in, go for it.I'm not railing against anything. I'm stating my opinion on it. It really is that simple.
Again, you need to show your work if you are going to use the word "mutilation". I've seen lots of trans people in my lifetime and "mutilation" is not a word I associate with any of them.
 
I am. 100%. You wanna do this to your kid, have at it. But I disagree with it and am willing to say so. And vote for those that agree with my position on it. That's how it works.
So you want us to have a personal choice but not have a personal choice? Not sure what you are railing against; Confused kids? Evil parents? Slimy doctors? You are not willing to believe that these people can come to this decision simply in good faith? There has to be an "evil they" in this subject?
Nope. You can come to it however you want. It's still mutilation of a child. However if that;s something you believe in, go for it.I'm not railing against anything. I'm stating my opinion on it. It really is that simple.
Again, you need to show your work if you are going to use the word "mutilation". I've seen lots of trans people in my lifetime and "mutilation" is not a word I associate with any of them.
Here
There's one.
 
Disagree. Again, it isn't the end of the story. For every doctor that agrees with changing a child's gender medically, I promise you I can find a doctor who would be against it. The issue is parents, who already want to get this thing done, are going to actively search for a doctor that supports their position. To think otherwise is just silly
Well, I'm sure this is false. I'm sure this is more like climate change, where 90% of the scientists agree with the issue and about 3-5% disagree. When the AMA, the American academy of pediatrics, and NATA all agree on something it is not because it is a 50/50 proposition.

Also, you are giving docs a real bad rap here. Most doctors are not twirling their mustaches trying to turn boys into girls, or girls into boys. While this is not my discipline, plenty of people come into my practice wanting things that may or may not be in their best interests. My job is to try and talk them out of it, or at least explain the risks and have them make an informed decision that includes all the risks involved. As stated above by Bigbottom, there is a whole litany of things that the patient in question has to go through before we get to prescribing anything, so again, not sure what you are trying to prove here other than you don't really understand this issue or doctors very well.
If you're a doctor that supports this mutilation, and you have a parent and a child that want this mutilation, you are far far more likely to approve this mutilation. If you're a doctor who does not support this mutilation, you are far far more willing to not support it.
And your 90% is made up gobbelygook. Prove that number
prove yours first. Again, the AMA, the AAoP, and NARA all agree with gender affirming care. Show me the medical group that is against it and then we can compare numbers.

I've been and have been to plenty of doctors both for and against certain types of care. They always (outside of pill mills) tend to have some trepidation about doing anything. Thats why we go to school for this stuff...
I'm not going to google search a doctor or medical professional who thinks this is a bad idea. I don't have to. If you firmly believe that all doctors agree with this, well then we can't go any further here.
so we went from 50/50 to 100% agree with me? Sounds like your argument is falling apart. I'm not saying 100% of doctors agree with me any more than 100% of scientists believe in climate change. However, I'd put the number much much higher than 50 /50 based on the organizations who are ok with the procedure. 4 out of 5 dentists preferring something doesn't mean all of them do, but more than 50% do!
 
Disagree. Again, it isn't the end of the story. For every doctor that agrees with changing a child's gender medically, I promise you I can find a doctor who would be against it. The issue is parents, who already want to get this thing done, are going to actively search for a doctor that supports their position. To think otherwise is just silly
Well, I'm sure this is false. I'm sure this is more like climate change, where 90% of the scientists agree with the issue and about 3-5% disagree. When the AMA, the American academy of pediatrics, and NATA all agree on something it is not because it is a 50/50 proposition.

Also, you are giving docs a real bad rap here. Most doctors are not twirling their mustaches trying to turn boys into girls, or girls into boys. While this is not my discipline, plenty of people come into my practice wanting things that may or may not be in their best interests. My job is to try and talk them out of it, or at least explain the risks and have them make an informed decision that includes all the risks involved. As stated above by Bigbottom, there is a whole litany of things that the patient in question has to go through before we get to prescribing anything, so again, not sure what you are trying to prove here other than you don't really understand this issue or doctors very well.
If you're a doctor that supports this mutilation, and you have a parent and a child that want this mutilation, you are far far more likely to approve this mutilation. If you're a doctor who does not support this mutilation, you are far far more willing to not support it.
And your 90% is made up gobbelygook. Prove that number
prove yours first. Again, the AMA, the AAoP, and NARA all agree with gender affirming care. Show me the medical group that is against it and then we can compare numbers.

I've been and have been to plenty of doctors both for and against certain types of care. They always (outside of pill mills) tend to have some trepidation about doing anything. Thats why we go to school for this stuff...
I'm not going to google search a doctor or medical professional who thinks this is a bad idea. I don't have to. If you firmly believe that all doctors agree with this, well then we can't go any further here.
so we went from 50/50 to 100% agree with me? Sounds like your argument is falling apart. I'm not saying 100% of doctors agree with me any more than 100% of scientists believe in climate change. However, I'd put the number much much higher than 50 /50 based on the organizations who are ok with the procedure. 4 out of 5 dentists preferring something doesn't mean all of them do, but more than 50% do!
Well we have increased from 50% to 90% all made up by posters here. So I don't know what made up statistic to respond to. Sorry about that. hard to keep track of the made up statistics!
 
I am. 100%. You wanna do this to your kid, have at it. But I disagree with it and am willing to say so. And vote for those that agree with my position on it. That's how it works.
So you want us to have a personal choice but not have a personal choice? Not sure what you are railing against; Confused kids? Evil parents? Slimy doctors? You are not willing to believe that these people can come to this decision simply in good faith? There has to be an "evil they" in this subject?
Nope. You can come to it however you want. It's still mutilation of a child. However if that;s something you believe in, go for it.I'm not railing against anything. I'm stating my opinion on it. It really is that simple.
Again, you need to show your work if you are going to use the word "mutilation". I've seen lots of trans people in my lifetime and "mutilation" is not a word I associate with any of them.
Here
There's one.
Nice. 2 things: 1) I agree with the concept that 100% of doctors will not agree here. If you are looking for me to prove the 100% number, you are barking up the wrong tree. I am saying, based on the groups that support it, that it is a preponderance of doctors who agree here.

2) No where in that article was the word "Mutilation" mentioned.

Finally, much like pot legalization, it is hard to assess the pros and cons of anything when the government steps in a sledgehammers it. Many people are questioning the "plan" and that is fair (much in the same way cancer treatments are updated etc). Creating a draconian law serves no one other than as a PR stunt.
 
I am. 100%. You wanna do this to your kid, have at it. But I disagree with it and am willing to say so. And vote for those that agree with my position on it. That's how it works.
So you want us to have a personal choice but not have a personal choice? Not sure what you are railing against; Confused kids? Evil parents? Slimy doctors? You are not willing to believe that these people can come to this decision simply in good faith? There has to be an "evil they" in this subject?
Nope. You can come to it however you want. It's still mutilation of a child. However if that;s something you believe in, go for it.I'm not railing against anything. I'm stating my opinion on it. It really is that simple.
Again, you need to show your work if you are going to use the word "mutilation". I've seen lots of trans people in my lifetime and "mutilation" is not a word I associate with any of them.
Here
There's one.
Nice. 2 things: 1) I agree with the concept that 100% of doctors will not agree here. If you are looking for me to prove the 100% number, you are barking up the wrong tree. I am saying, based on the groups that support it, that it is a preponderance of doctors who agree here.

2) No where in that article was the word "Mutilation" mentioned.

Finally, much like pot legalization, it is hard to assess the pros and cons of anything when the government steps in a sledgehammers it. Many people are questioning the "plan" and that is fair (much in the same way cancer treatments are updated etc). Creating a draconian law serves no one other than as a PR stunt.
And protecting kids. But that seeks unimportant
 
Here
There's one.
From that link it describes those that detransition as "This is a minority within a minority." Their voices, their concerns should absolutely be part of the conversation but they shouldn't be elevated to be the norm in policy discussions.

And protecting kids. But that seeks unimportant
Protect the "minority within a minority", to the detriment of the "majority with a minority". Why? What is the basis on why trans kids must suffer through waiting because a small number of non trans kids desperate desire to find love and acceptance look for it in the wrong place?
 
Here
There's one.
From that link it describes those that detransition as "This is a minority within a minority." Their voices, their concerns should absolutely be part of the conversation but they shouldn't be elevated to be the norm in policy discussions.

And protecting kids. But that seeks unimportant
Protect the "minority within a minority", to the detriment of the "majority with a minority". Why? What is the basis on why trans kids must suffer through waiting because a small number of non trans kids desperate desire to find love and acceptance look for it in the wrong place?
He asked for evidence. I provided it
 
Argue all day man..Never changing my mind. ANY kind of gender modifications to any child under 18 is wrong in my opinion. Plain and simple.
This is where I'm at. Adults even suggesting kids get "transformed", IMO, is child abuse.

Kids should not make these decisions until they are a legal adult - then go nuts. Until then, let the adults virtue signal all they want, I guess.
 
Here
There's one.
From that link it describes those that detransition as "This is a minority within a minority." Their voices, their concerns should absolutely be part of the conversation but they shouldn't be elevated to be the norm in policy discussions.

And protecting kids. But that seeks unimportant
Protect the "minority within a minority", to the detriment of the "majority with a minority". Why? What is the basis on why trans kids must suffer through waiting because a small number of non trans kids desperate desire to find love and acceptance look for it in the wrong place?
JHC, trans people as a group are a minority of a minority but yet you want them to have an outsized voice in all kinds of things that affect the vast super majority. Get outta' here.

Your arguments would make sense if they were based in reality.
 
Here
There's one.
From that link it describes those that detransition as "This is a minority within a minority." Their voices, their concerns should absolutely be part of the conversation but they shouldn't be elevated to be the norm in policy discussions.

And protecting kids. But that seeks unimportant
Protect the "minority within a minority", to the detriment of the "majority with a minority". Why? What is the basis on why trans kids must suffer through waiting because a small number of non trans kids desperate desire to find love and acceptance look for it in the wrong place?
JHC, trans people as a group are a minority of a minority but yet you want them to have an outsized voice in all kinds of things that affect the vast super majority. Get outta' here.

Your arguments would make sense if they were based in reality.
.
 
You like to use the word illness, I use the word condition that needs to be managed. As a doctor, many conditions cannot be cured, simply managed. In any and all those cases, government does not intervene. It is up to the patient, their parents, and the doctor. We can look at this logically as a spectrum of choices and when does the government have a say or should they:
On one side we have real issues: Cancer, Pediatric Diabetes, ie life threatening conditions. On the other side we have a contact lens fitting. Putting a kid into a contact lens in no way is the same as a cancer treatment, but it is putting something into their body (in this case a class II medical device) that can have side effects (where a pair of glasses do not). On the entirety of this spectrum (ADD treatment likely falls somewhere in the middle) the government does not take the decisions for these conditions out of the hands of the patient, their parents, or their doctor. The only time they do is abortion and now this. Why? Abortion I can see the reasoning: the "unborn (as ou put it)" has no say, but here? Everyone is having a say.

Makes. No. Sense. Unless you see it as what it is: a political grandstanding moment instead of actual care for the person involved.


cancer is a condition now ? comparing transitioning to contact lenses ?

I can't follow you on either of those, sorry, they make zero sense to me
Again, you may be the type of patient I have to speak to really slowly if you do not get what I am saying here. All of these things are conditions that require a treatment plan. What they are treating is a matter of degree. Some are life threatening and require acute and immediate treatment while others are not and in some cases are not threatening the heath of the patient. In treating any condition, from cancer down to Myopia you weigh the risks vs the benefits of a treatment program. You present that to the parent and to the child as well and you , as a doctor advise them as to the risks and benefits of any treatment program (this is called informed consent). The parents usually make the call here, but when the child needs to "buy in" to the treatment plan (ie taking their meds, watching what they eat (diabetes) or insertion and removal of a contact lens (or even wearing their glasses)). This is what I mean when I talk about this issue. In every case of treating any condition the government does not actively impede the doctor patient relationship. The only time it does is for 1) Abortion and 2) this particular topic. As I said before (and will repeat because either you do not get it or are intentionally being obtuse) I understand the abortion reasoning even as I disagree with it. "the "unborn" does not have a say in the process, so someone needs to speak for them so the anti-abortion people take up their cause, so to speak.

With a Trans issue the child is not "unborn" so they have a say in their decision here. Their parents and their doctors are there to affirm or deny the treatment plan much like they are with any other condition to be treated. However, for some reason the government (and more specifically right aligned people in government) have decided that this condition is the one they must step in and regulate where in all other cases they leave this up to the actual parties involved in the decision. I'm saying that regardless of where you stand on this issue, taking the decision away from the stakeholders makes no sense. Period, end of story.
Disagree. Again, it isn't the end of the story. For every doctor that agrees with changing a child's gender medically, I promise you I can find a doctor who would be against it. The issue is parents, who already want to get this thing done, are going to actively search for a doctor that supports their position. To think otherwise is just silly
This is not true. There is a consensus amongst the leading medical groups on this. You’re making up things because the data doesn’t support your position.
 
Here
There's one.
From that link it describes those that detransition as "This is a minority within a minority." Their voices, their concerns should absolutely be part of the conversation but they shouldn't be elevated to be the norm in policy discussions.

And protecting kids. But that seeks unimportant
Protect the "minority within a minority", to the detriment of the "majority with a minority". Why? What is the basis on why trans kids must suffer through waiting because a small number of non trans kids desperate desire to find love and acceptance look for it in the wrong place?
He asked for evidence. I provided it
Maybe I missed an example, but where are the children in that article that represent your evidence of children being mutilated?

  • Sinead Watson, 30, a Genspect advisor who transitioned from female to male, starting in 2015, and who decided to detransition in 2019. (30 in 2022 would make her 22 or 23 in 2015).
  • Carol and Grace don't provide age information
  • Allie, a 22-year-old who stopped taking testosterone after one-and-a-half years, ...When she decided to transition, at age 18,
  • Another detransitioner, Laura Becker, ... was given testosterone and had a double-mastectomy at age 20.
  • Limpida, aged 24, said he felt pushed into transitioning after seeking help at a Planned Parenthood clinic. When he went to the clinic at age 21 to get estrogen
  • Robin, also aged 24, ...push him into detransitioning, which began in 2020 after 4 years of estrogen. (22 in 2020, 18 when starting estrogen)
 
You like to use the word illness, I use the word condition that needs to be managed. As a doctor, many conditions cannot be cured, simply managed. In any and all those cases, government does not intervene. It is up to the patient, their parents, and the doctor. We can look at this logically as a spectrum of choices and when does the government have a say or should they:
On one side we have real issues: Cancer, Pediatric Diabetes, ie life threatening conditions. On the other side we have a contact lens fitting. Putting a kid into a contact lens in no way is the same as a cancer treatment, but it is putting something into their body (in this case a class II medical device) that can have side effects (where a pair of glasses do not). On the entirety of this spectrum (ADD treatment likely falls somewhere in the middle) the government does not take the decisions for these conditions out of the hands of the patient, their parents, or their doctor. The only time they do is abortion and now this. Why? Abortion I can see the reasoning: the "unborn (as ou put it)" has no say, but here? Everyone is having a say.

Makes. No. Sense. Unless you see it as what it is: a political grandstanding moment instead of actual care for the person involved.


cancer is a condition now ? comparing transitioning to contact lenses ?

I can't follow you on either of those, sorry, they make zero sense to me

Here is how I raised my kids .... I listened to them, and then I made decisions I thought was best for them and their input didn't matter just a whole lot. Sexting? No, and I don't care how badly they felt they needed to. Porn? No, I don't care how much they wanted it. Sleepovers with boys at 12 or 13 years old? No, my daughter wasn't allowed, I don't care how she was feeling. I could list on and on all the things my son and daughters wanted/felt ......... they were wrong, they were just kids and didn't know any better

Given the autonomy you champion as a parent, it seems counterintuitive that you would embrace legislation that supplants that autonomy.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top