I think it's pretty safe to say that both doctors and patients do not want any treatment options to be banned and want to begin with the safest and most effective treatment. (This doesn't mean there are inexperience or even unethical providers, especially in a for-profit health care business). There seem to be only three options: affirming, conversion, or doing nothing (wait and see, psychotherapy for integration, ...). Gender-affirming care (GAC), by definition, affirms the gender after a gender dysphoria diagnosis. It is not the only option or approach after a gender dysphoria diagnosis. Take WPATH as an example... On the onset, WPATH stated, and I paraphrase: some individuals need both hormone therapy and surgery to alleviate their gender dysphoria, while others need only one of these options, and some need neither. They noted that psychotherapy is often helpful, as some individuals integrate their transgender feelings into the gender role they were assigned at birth and do not feel the need to feminize or masculinize their body. In other words, treatment for gender dysphoria should be individualized. Furthermore, WPATH stated that gender dysphoria during childhood does not inevitably continue into adulthood. They mentioned studies that showed only 6-23% of pre-pubertal boys and 12-27% of pre-pubertal girls referred for assessment of gender dysphoria had persistent dysphoria in adulthood. Thus, for most children, gender dysphoria will disappear before or early in puberty. You can infer caution from that statement. Part of the WPATH standard of care is to not provide affirming treatments unless the adolescent has demonstrated a long-lasting and intense pattern of gender dysphoria, if the dysphoria has worsened with the onset of puberty, if any co-existing psychological, medical, or social problems have been addressed, and of course, if informed consent has been obtained (from the patient if possible and/or guardians). Conversion therapy (or confirming the sex assigned at birth) is mentioned, but it cites short and long-term studies showing that this treatment has been unsuccessful and is no longer considered ethical. It goes on to explain psychological and social interventions, social transition, physical transition, fully reversible interventions, partially reversible interventions, and irreversible interventions. How each country deals with these options is up to them, and as I mentioned, in Europe, where universal healthcare is available, the government plays a much bigger role than here in the US. They are themselves going through their own "fine-tuning" if you will, in figuring out what's best for them. The US has taken the most drastic and harmful approach - banning all GAC for adolescents and now criminalizing it.
I am sure that some practitioners require extensive therapy and treatment before they begins hormone treatments and puberty blockers - but many do not. https://www.plannedparenthood.org/p...er-affirming-care/hormone-therapy-first-visit Planned Parenthood (who I financially have supported for 20 years) for example does not. They will often do it after a single visit. The University of Iowa typically does it after a second visit and requires no proof of counseling. Plume is one of (if not the largest) transgender medical providers for minors and adults that are trans and they are 100% done online and will prescribe hormones after a first visit and will for a fee, even write a letter of recommendation for a doctor stating that the patient has a necessity for trans surgery. There are many places that will begin hormone treatment right away. This is the Wild Wild West right now in the USA when it comes to trangender treatment. Clinics are trying to financially capitalize on it in some cases, conservative pundits are trying to make careers over it and some supporters are zealously glossing over the current environment because they support the right of someone to transition. In the US most reputable clinics/universities require that a minor get signed approval from their guardian and a letter of support from a counselor stating that the minor is a viable candidate for hormones (regardless of how many times a counselor has seen the minor)… once those are done, hormone treatment begins. Most insurance companies will not cover top surgery before 16, so that is more rare, but there are places that will do it at 14. The age range to start puberty blockers is usually between 8-12 years old for females and a little older for boys. The regulation in UK is far better and far more uniform than it is in the USA where it ranges from giving hormone treatment to minors after a single visit - to Taliban type rules that are horrendous, that force children to detransition against their will. This isn’t a black and white issue and there are questionable behaviors all the way around.
What a bizarre, pity-party of a tweet. Sounds like the UK has a pervert problem. Good luck with that.
Taliban type rules (extreme politics) kill reasonable reform. Reasonable people in the fields are afraid to speak up for fear of attacks by extremists. As I said in this thread, the US government has a role to play in ensuring that providers adhere more closely to the best practices and standards of care. Providing treatments after a single visit does not meet those standards, unless that single visit is extensive, involves close collaboration with other providers, and aligns with the criteria of the standard of care set by professional organizations such as WPATH. Imposing a blanket ban is highly harmful, and forcing detransition is cruel.
If you're one of the idiots that conflate queer with pervert/pedophile then pretty much every country.
So you basically consider yourself an idiot conflating pervert and pedophile? Last I checked, one of those words is strictly in relation to under age children. The more you know.
I wouldn't go this far - at least based on what I have heard him say in limited amounts - but I don't know how he is at home etc.... but regardless, your over arching point is accurate - he validates the patriarchy. He doesn't simply say maybe there are a few good things about the patriarchy, he overall validates it. He is also weird, he moved to some far off place near Russia for awhile.
I don't ever understand sharing individual Tweets and assuming they're authentic. I still think the trans thread is a distraction from more important issues. In general healthcare for everyone in the U.S. could be a lot better. That doesn't take into account the millions that are uninsured and then those that are under-insured because they opt for cost effective healthcare policies that can fit in their budget, likely because of stagnant wages or managing their own chronic illness which limits their ability to work, but their health insurance policy may not necessarily cover Emergency Room Care or specific types of healthcare treatments that may skyrocket someone's bill on the off chance they actually need it for a specific type of treatment not covered in their policy. So roughly 10% of the population in the U.S. is without health insurance and statistically some trans people would fit into that demographic and then there's an understudied % of American residents that are under-insured to boot. Without even banning any gender affirming care, you've already displaced millions, some with chronic illnesses that aren't even trans, into the climate we're in right now. And they're not getting any coverage in news stories because the sleight of hand is instead focused on trans healthcare and denial of it in legislative policies. And again, steroids and any PEDs are far more prevalent among both men and women among adolescents and young adults than there are trans identifying adolescents and young adults total. And among those trans identifying adolescents and young adults, a good chunk of them are likely uninsured or under-insured meaning they'd be denied healthcare options whether legislative bans against them were enacted or not. That's how the rigged the game is. The legislation ban against gender affirming care is to deny people that can even afford such costly healthcare, which makes up a very small amount of trans people in a high enough income bracket to afford such treatments. And again conversely, steroids and PED abuse and general body enhancements among adolescents and young adults is far more prevalent, yet not nearly as stigmatized. In fact, PED abuse among young men and women is encouraged. There's the multi-billion sports entertainment industry that then benefits the multi-billion dollar gambling industry and then the merch industry and tourist industry that advertises athletes and celebrities that are on gear or get frequent cosmetic surgery. These industries are built literally off the backs of world class athletes and celebrities that do all sorts of crap to their bodies. And that's all okay, because it's extremely profitable even though suicide is much higher for people that have been on PEDs in the past and continue to use them now. These are the same hypocrites that want to deny healthcare to such a miniscule % of the American population that were already denied access based on their income before any legislation against trans people was ever introduced, in order to distract that they really do support PED use and body enhancements, but only if it ultimately is to the benefit of multi-billion dollar industries that they know and love and and supports the athletes and celebrities they probably secret jack off to in private.
Inappropriate for kids - but it isn't really a sexual display, it is an S&M display, that doesn't have to include sex - in fact usually doesn't involve sex. Still, inappropriate for children IMO - but ill also point out that there are a lot of inappropriate things that children see and witness.
Exactly. The overall risks/benefits discussion that would take place even when starting a cholesterol medication isn’t there. People fear the backlash and the label of “denying gender affirming care” and therefore are under the pressure to do so. A lot of people are afraid of getting fired and therefore will walk the line as well. to @fchowd0311 at @Sweet Lou 4 2 i agree with most of the thebpost you made the other day we actually don’t disagree. I believe we all want what’s best for kids (I’m not going to speak about the adults they have a right to do what they want), if the risks outweighs the benefits for example in that scenario of suicide attempts it’s a no brainer to provide this treatment. However the long term affects are not being taken into consideration as would with other treatments because the lack of doing so is portrayed as discrimination
