Right, statically it’s a very small number and as I said before, if you are willing to take self determination away from families to guard against all possible child abuses, there are many other areas you should focus on. Start by banning children from attending churches.
Also remove all children from Independent Fundamentalist Baptists or any Christian homeschooling network as those networks train children to ignore sexual abuses from their parents. They are so isolated from public light, that sexual predator fathers can take full advantage of the isolation especially since the central premise of these communities is all members of the family submit to the father/husband. Giving such absolute power is what perpetuates sexual abuse on minors. Many of those homeschooled kids don't even have the language to express how they've been sexually molested.
There are always some professionals in any field who have different opinions than the standard of care (or any standard). This is why a standard of care (or any standard) is important. It serves as a guideline for medical/psychological treatment based on scientific evidence and collaboration among professionals involved. We have a standard for the childhood vaccination schedule. There are definitely some professionals in the field who do not follow that standard or are even against vaccinating children. However, the mass majority of professionals do adhere to the standard. It would be unreasonable to allow a few individuals to dictate their professional opinion against the standard and apply it to everyone. It would be very bad if the gov were to ban vaccination based on these outliers.
That's why we have CPS. That's why we have medical boards. That's why we have a criminal justice system. We entrust child-rearing to parents and medical/psychological care to professionals. We do not impose our own standards on everyone, but we have organizations in place to monitor and address child abuse. What the right-wing gov is doing today is stripping away parental rights (ironically, branding it as "parental rights"). They want the gov to be the decision-maker, disregarding the input of parents, children, and their medical/psychological providers. It's a complete reversal from the principles of conservatism and small government. This approach represents a larger, oppressive gov that some on the right accept because it only affects a small group of people, without realizing that once that door is open, the gov has the power to target them in the future. Examples are banning fundamentalist homeschooling, banning children from attending churches, and so on.
This isn't about caring about children or anything like that. We know that. This is about demonizing a group of people to gain power. Old playbook. Find a vulnerable group - and spread misinformation to make them a villain so you have something to rally the troops and fight against.
I don’t think there is anything wrong with there being a trans section or trans clothes in an adult section of a store. As long as adults are informed of how gruesome bottom surgery is, and they choose to go through with it, I believe it is their choice and no one’s business really. There is no doubt that some of those that just hate adults being able to be trans gendered are hiding behind children and schools because it is a more popular or palatable reason for most Americans. It is a lot harder to say that adults shouldn’t have bodily autonomy than it is to say that children could be influenced to be transgendered. What gets lost is the debate - which like the abortion debate- often isn’t entirely honest from either side, is that we are talking about people - and I notice that many on both sides fail to recognize it. The Republicans are also exploiting this issue and using it as an opportunity to restrict the freedoms and rights of other people.
I think 100% of this trans content of the past 21 years is not naturally being covered and is explicit propaganda to spam a scapegoat group. 100%.
literally no-one, republican or democrat, atheist or evangelical, black, brown, or beige, gives a **** what adults do to their bodies. some of us may find it aesthetically weird, but if someone over the age of 18 wants to chop off their dick or breasts, no one cares. what most thinking people DO care about is preventing children from making decisions before they are old enough to understand the consequences. this should be non-controversial. that it isn't, tells us more about the democratic party's agenda, than it does the republicans. a clever republican, should one exist, would run on being the voice of sanity. front bottom surgery: my impression, perhaps incorrect, is that most trans women do not get this operation. Blair White, who is a voice of reason in this debate, has not, and recognizes that trans women are similar to women, but they're not the same.
My coworkers niece (male at birth) is having these discussions with her doctor. She is a teenager and the medical advice is that blocking male puberty has a lot of harmful side effects and will prevent the ability to do bottom surgery at a later date. So ultimately the family is continuing medical talk therapy for their teenagers dysphoria and any potential body modifications will occur after they’re finished with puberty. I look at the teen and I get it. She is quite lanky and very effeminate presenting. Of course she feels like she was born in the wrong body. But my controversial take is that we don’t choose our genetic makeup any more than the family we are born into and that you should be grateful for the body if it is otherwise healthy. I don’t believe the mind is gendered whereas the body definitely is. So I personally wouldn’t want my kids to get treatment for gender dysphoria that was surgical or hormonal treatment but I also understand that a lot of these people who undergo the treatment do report a significant improvement to their well being. Thankfully that is not something I am currently having to even think about. This thread is the only place where I see constant debasing of transgender people. It’s also the place where there is so much energy being directed at transgender people. In regular real world conversations, it just does not come up.
I don't know who either of those people are, but congratulations, you found two people on the internet who disagree with me.
It's both. Some people genuinely have concerns about children being subjected to drastic medical treatments. While I personally believe their approach is very misguided and wrong, it's not an invalid argument. I strongly believe that those individuals should engage with the medical/psych community and push them to on what is appropriate care, rather than completely disregarding it and advocating for or supporting the banning of treatments that are part of the standard of care. That's a very dangerous precedent to set. ps. I also think these people are being used by right wing politicians.
Until recently, most Republicans disagreed with you, and perhaps many still do. You might remember the argument against Obamacare: that the government should not interfere in the relationship between doctors and patients, which was a false claim as Obamacare did not do such a thing. The GOP is now exactly doing that.
What you fail to understand is that a 12 year old trans child doesn't want to undergo puberty - because by the time they are 18 it's too late to make a decision - they can't go back in time. This isn't about children having operations, it's about preventing permanent changes that will be traumatic for some people to go through. If you lack compassion and just want to rigidly stick to - wait until you are an adult, you completely lack empathy for trans kids.
ok, what are the real and objective harms of any hormonal therapy? Go. You sound very articulate and speak with a great deal of confidence. Please lay out the harms of any hormonal therapy. Any position you advocate for should detail the benefits, harms and alternatives. Any counselingi n good faith (and informed consent by LAW) requires this. If you can lay these out and argue that the vast majority of people subjected to this stand to benefit more than the harms (you will outline for me), you will have me in agreement. Something tells me this will be more of a politicized point than risks/benefits discussion for you.
