350
New poll finds strong majority opposes gender-affirming care bans for trans minors
(www.lgbtqnation.com)
this post was submitted on 17 Jun 2024
350 points (93.5% liked)
politics
19107 readers
2644 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is EXACTLY the point I'm making. Should we shove steroids into the boy and estrogen into the girl? Push up and padded bras in lieu of boob jobs? Are we in such a hurry to cram drugs down someone's throat that we can't let them develop and then make a decision on their own when they are capable of? My original statement is just that. We can't say one is right when the other isn't. Provide emotional support and education? Absolutely. Provide drugs and potentially life changing side effects on "proven" yet not thoroughly tested treatments? No. It's my opinion, sure, but my reasoning is sound.
This is a complex topic. Absolutely counseling should be available and it's positively evil that someone would block that. I don't disagree. Many doctors are simply a walking prescription book and will provide what is asked for... so I will typically discount when someone uses doctor prescription as an argument. Kudos to that doctor, though- I respect that.
A great deal of that suffering is from lack in of emotional support. I know it's common to solve this with drugs but let's ease off the gas a bit.
You're demonstrating that you don't know what medical interventions are used for minors. That's hormone replacement therapy, whereas puberty blockers are a different set of medicines that inhibit estrogens and androgens.
I'm making an example. Don't be pedantic.
You're making bad faith arguments and it is hard to take you seriously because I don't know which of your "examples" are supposed to be "true and useful".
Making a generic statement to further a conversation is commonplace. It was not to be taken literally. If you are planning on analyzing my figures of speech for fallacies, by all means, be my guest: but it only reinforces my observation from earlier.
Elsewhere in this thread, you assert that hormones produced during puberty are essential to the cognitive development of these children you seem to care so much about. But now we should make those same children wait nearly a decade – delaying this vital development – until they're legally adults? Because their developing brains are too underdeveloped to make the decision to seek medical treatment that would allow their brains to develop, as you claim? That's quite the catch 22.
Out of curiosity, what medical treatments do you consider allowable for minors? Can a student struggling to focus in school take medication for executive function disorders? Bipolar disorder is commonly diagnosed in adolescence, do those individuals have a legal right to seek treatment before their 18th birthdays? Or something that can potentially be treated with over-the-counter medication, like insomnia, or even seasonal allergies? Do we – as you say – cram drugs down these children's throats, or wait until they're 18 so we can make sure that they really do want treatment to improve their lives?
After all, maybe those kids are just lazy, want attention, or like staying up late, we better wait until they're legally adults to make sure they don't just grow out of it.
It's a distasteful and disingenuous tone but I'll break it down:
You are combining two statements I made and inferring something incorrectly from it.
First in reference to the hormones and puberty: it's known that these hormones don't exclusively develop our sexual attributes. They do, certainly, but that's not all they do. Many of the drawbacks of taking inhibitors are result of inhibiting this (other) development in our bodies. I believe I referenced the mayo clinics site as an example.
Cognitive development is important. Absolutely. I firmly believe that prior to the age of consent we shouldn't be in a hurry to medicate away this "problem." The adolescent should be supported and given access to counseling so they, given sufficient time and information, can make an informed decision.
That is roughly what I'm implying- but your math is off unless we are starting this discussion around the age of 6 to 8. Let's dial down the dramatics here.
I'm omitting your catch 22 as it is circular nonsense.
This is more or less all the same. In short most of the things you have listed can be tested for and quantified. And yes while we can use drugs for treatment - very frequently we employ counseling and other less drastic methods before resorting to drugs. A state of being or sense of self is difficult to test for or quantity. There has been some headway on it but it's in it's infancy... so yes my stance on exercising a more methodical and cautious approach remains a reasonable decision.
Nothing disingenuous here, just asking questions so I can better understand your position. It's clear that you're passionate about the welfare of children.
I was operating under the assumption that all your statements in this thread were part of a larger argument for your position. I'll walk through my thought process, hopefully you can correct my inference.
Here you state that hormones are essential for more than just sexual development, no disagreement there. The statement was made in the context of a discussion about brain development, correct?
Here you imply that individuals whose bodies do not produce the hormones associated with the sex they were assigned at birth should not be given treatment to rectify that.
So I see two claims here: first, that hormones during puberty are required for brain development, and second, that individuals should wait until they are legally adults to receive any kind of hormone-related medical treatment.
A catch-22 is by definition circular nonsense, a paradox that's only way out leads you right back into it.
So say an individual doesn't start puberty for whatever reason (which starts on average between ages 8 and 14, according to the NIH). This means, according to your assertion, that their brain will lack the necessary chemicals to mature in the average timescale. Meaning, that at 18 – the age of consent for most of the US and when you assert that an individual is mature enough to make these decisions – their brain will not be mature enough to make that decision. How can they ever get the treatment they need to enable that development if their brain never develops to the point you would be comfortable with them making that decision? Wouldn't they still be an immature teenager trapped in an adult body, not ready to understand the consequences of their actions? Who gets to make the medical decision for them, if anyone, or are they trapped in some kind of limbo, unable to consent to anything for their entire lives?
Can you help me find some more information on this? To my knowledge, therapy and counseling are essential parts of treatment for gender dysphoria, but it sounds like there must be doctors recklessly prescribing hormone therapy and I'd love to know more about that so I'm not caught off guard again.