The size of the crowd is hardly relevant. It's one of the most popular conservative media personalities speaking as a headliner at the premier conservative political conference in the country. This game of "dumb or dishonest" with basso has been the same for 20 years now.
Surgery is still a rarified form of butchery in most cases. You pray after the fact that the body recovers in its wake. In this case, surgeons are deliberately modifying against the genetic blueprint for adolescence while hoping a drug cocktail will hack the rest for their desired goals. It's not always perfect and more a game of risks and chance. Then you have to wonder if the minor will be happy with the results and remain happy about it well after adulthood. Corrective surgery is never perfect. There's also chronic pain complications that aren't advertised.
It's questionable at best that this bill says that. https://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/23 Regular/final/HB0007.pdf I also cannot find any other news outlet reporting this, not even conservative ones, so, maybe sensationalism. I did find a bill recently in New Mexico that spoke to the concept of a minor changing their name, and that the state would not be obligated to notify the guardian if it suspected that doing so would endanger the individual in question.
There is no such thing as completely safe treatments of any kind. Surgery definitely carries risks, but so do medications. Once again, the standard of care for best practices involves making these decisions on an individual basis, in collaboration with medical and mental health professionals experienced in the field. If anything, the gov can ensure that discussions and safeguards (including risks and unknowns) are clearly communicated by professionals to parents before any interventions are initiated. By and large, this is already happening, but the gov can play a role in requiring it. Regarding your second question on well-being outcomes, that is precisely the type of data that informs the determination of standard of care and best practices. Therefore, by default, you can refer to that for guidance. While long-term studies into individuals' well-being into said their 50s or 60s is not available AFAIK, we do have some studies on gender affirming care that began during youth and its impact into adulthood. https://www.scientificamerican.com/...rming-care-for-transgender-kids-really-shows/ The truth is that data from more than a dozen studies of more than 30,000 transgender and gender-diverse young people consistently show that access to gender-affirming care is associated with better mental health outcomes—and that lack of access to such care is associated with higher rates of suicidality, depression and self-harming behavior Data suggest the effects of denying that care are worse than whatever side effects result from delaying sex-assigned-at-birth puberty. And medical society guidelines conclude that the benefits of gender-affirming care outweigh the risks. Without gender-affirming hormone therapy, cisgender hormones take over, forcing body changes that can be permanent and distressing. A 2020 study of 300 gender-incongruent young people found that mental distress—including self-harm, suicidal thoughts and depression—increased as the children were made to proceed with puberty according to their assigned sex. By the time 184 older teens (with a median age of 16) reached the stage in which transgender boys began their periods and grew breasts and transgender girls’ voice dropped and facial hair began to appear, 46 percent had been diagnosed with depression, 40 percent had self-harmed, 52 percent had considered suicide, and 17 percent had attempted it—rates significantly higher than those of gender-incongruent children who were a median of 13.9 years old or of cisgender kids their own age. Conversely, access to gender-affirming hormones in adolescence appears to have a protective effect. In one study, researchers followed 104 teens and young adults for a year and asked them about their depression, anxiety and suicidality at the time they started receiving hormones or puberty blockers and again at the three-month, six-month and one-year mark. At the beginning of the study, which was published in JAMA Network Open in February 2022, more than half of the respondents reported moderate to severe depression, half reported moderate to severe anxiety, and 43.3 percent reported thoughts of self-harm or suicide in the past two weeks. But when the researchers analyzed the results based on the kind of gender-affirming care the teens had received, they found that those who had access to puberty blockers or gender-affirming hormones were 60 percent less likely to experience moderate to severe depression. And those with access to the medical treatments were 73 percent less likely to contemplate self-harm or suicide. “Delays in prescribing puberty blockers and hormones may in fact worsen mental health symptoms for trans youth,” says Diana Tordoff, an epidemiology graduate student at the University of Washington and co-author of the study. That effect may be lifelong. A 2022 study of more than 21,000 transgender adults showed that just 41 percent of adults who wanted hormone therapy received it, and just 2.3 percent had access to it in adolescence. When researchers looked at rates of suicidal thinking over the past year in these same adults, they found that access to hormone therapy in early adolescence was associated with a 60 percent reduction in suicidality in the past year and that access in late adolescence was associated with a 50 percent reduction. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...nce-trans-youth-gender-affirming-medical-care Sixteen studies to date have examined the impact of gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth. Existing evidence suggests that gender-affirming medical care results in favorable mental health outcomes. All major medical organizations oppose legislation that would ban gender-affirming medical care for transgender adolescents.
First of all there is a difference between hormonal therapy and puberty blockers. So it's actually two different conversations. Secondly, you can't weigh the cost/benefit of either of those therapies without considering the cost/benefit of doing nothing - given the suicide rate and permanent effects that going through puberty have. This isn't any easy thing to measure. And I am no means arguing that hormonal therapy or puberty blockers is a cureall or should even be the standard of care. What I am arguing is that politicians should not be passing blanket bans on this stuff because they haven't done this analysis and are merely acting to get votes here and not doing what's in the best interests of trans children. This should be a scientific debate as you say, not a political one, and right now the decisions to ban this stuff is political.
Did you read what I say? Ask them if it would have mattered if they took puberty blockers when they were younger and what impact that would have had for them now? I mean people make a big deal about manly trans women is sports when they win - because they still have the bone structure even after transitioning as an adult. Those who take puberty blockers when they are younger - you would have no idea they even transitioned. The whole debate about trans athletes would be moot.
It's disappointing for me to see Scientific American not have any mention of the debate Western European countries are having over GAC for adolescents. Her article links "parent connectedness" with a six question scale. That link was a study that looked into LGB cohorts. The suicide rates in that study for the LGB group are not as bad as trans, but with 50% surveyed having at least one suicide attempt with "non supportive families", it's not a stretch to presume family support is an outsized influence as much or more than receiving hormonal or puberty blocking treatment during adolescence, which is implied in many articles like the ones you provided. I don't think the European debate vindicates states calling for a blanket ban, nor do I think the American approach is superior in any sense. American doctors are taking the word of the minor as absolute and you essentially rely on that chain of doctors to do their due diligence with the latest studies or information rather than pushing an agenda. That part happens often (surgeons recommending surgery like a hammer seeing everything as nails, GP recommending name brand pharmaceuticals after getting a sponsored trip from its company, a progressive doctor not wanting to feel like they're oppressing their patients desires, or even a doctor prescribing antibiotics to an overly pushy flu patient....) but we generally learn about those the hard way as adults. The reason those Euro countries are heavily restricting GAC is because they're questioning the assertions made by the writer in the Sci Am article. Why are more natal girls coming out as trans in the last few years? Are they tomboys who are merely curious, sexually butch but doesn't mind going all the way, maybe the dad really wanted a boy to the point that the girl felt deep loathing... I'm not trying to be glib over what trained professionals and therapists diagnose supposedly over serval years, but they don't know why the European numbers are off either and that's a huge problem. Are we assuming behavior, variance, or occurance for diagnosing trans is the same for both sexes? We don't know. Many of these aggregate studies sanctifying GAC for adolescents acknowledge about the dearth of information in this subject, but that paper is supposed to be the final word when the original Dutch paper that formed the country's Gold Standard treatment is being heavily scrutinized right now by different countries looking to repeat its results. It doesn't add up. These doctors, if they were honest, have to tell the minors upfront that they're being guinea pigs if they choose to continue. I guess that's a little better when it's not about The Science, but rather Doing it for Science.
This is a lot of respond to. First of all, the last thing we need is to politicize this. It's already politicized, and we have seen that once something is politicized, it no longer just follows the evidence. I feel for any parent who is going through this with their children. The shock and confusion on how to proceed are extremely difficult. It's not so different from the COVID vaccination debate. On one hand, you have experts and evidence saying one thing, and on the other hand, you have lots of reasonable and unreasonable hypotheses, guesses, and even some evidence saying another thing. My position is still, as confusing as it is, here in the US, don't ban treatments. Leave it up to the families and their providers. I'm not sure where to start. Maybe I start with these topics: 1- (the initiate question I replied to) what is the outcome of GAC on minor into adulthood 2- What is the state of debate over GAC in the EU region, including UK (e.g. are they banning GAC, what about heavy restriction of GAC) 3- Doctors altitude toward providing services (surgery in your example) 4- Diagnostic trend for transgender 5- Guinea pigs 1-It's clear what the studies have suggested so far for short-term outcomes (again, we don't have really long-term results). Of the 16 studies listed (with various strength and weaknesses as typical with most studies) from the link I provided, 10 were from the US and 6 from EU (including UK). There was 3 studies from Dutch (all from the same author). I'm not sure if that's the "Dutch paper" you mentioned, but those study themselves are relatively small in comparison to the other studies. I don't think they would serve as a gold standard. In fact, the article mentioned that there are no randomized control trials (for obvious reasons - it's unethical) and with that, there is no gold standard. However, taken both individually and all together, they still point to one direction so far. I'm not aware of any study that shows 'regret' or lower well-being due to GAC in adolescents. So, while it's important to scrutinize any study, it's also important to keep this in mind. 2- AFAIK, GAC in the EU region is allowed with parental consent. The restrictions are for non-parental consent. Some EU countries allow GAC for individuals as young as 14 without parental consent (that's crazy to me). More on #2 below. 3- The main bodies that providers of care for transgender minors follow are the WPATH (World Professional Association for Transgender Health) and the AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics). Both emphasis an individualized approach, multidisciplinary approach (collaboration between doctors, psychiatrist, etc). In EU region, where universal healthcare is provided, the gov plays a much larger role than the US in approving and standardizing care. Providers are probably both legally and ethically required to follow these standards and the gov protocols. The EU gov thus play a much larger role in opening up or restricting care based on their own view on societal impact. That in turn should impact the needle on how many people are seeking care (#4). It might (or might not) explain why there has been an increase in referrals for care in some EU but not other EU countries. 4- The estimate is anywhere from 0.1 to 1% of the population has gender dysphoria. That's a huge range and I don't think we have a good idea on where it really is. There has been an increase in seeking care by trans women over the past 25 years - good data that no one can explain but there are some hypothesis. Recently, there has also been a rapid increase in seeking care (esp by trans girl) in some EU countries. Again, no one know why and it's a bit of a shock. There has been some hypothesis from "social contagion" to gov opening up care providing more access. At least one study involving some 90k stuck down the 'social contagion' hypothesis but that study was, IRCC, ended in 2019 and social media has changed quite a bit since, so I'm personally not going to say social media doesn't play a role here. (and fk social media on impact on kids). 5- You can correct me if I'm wrong here, but I think the guinea pigs here are not so much on GAC for those who are accurately diagnosed, at least not for the short and medium term. It's the yucky feeling, weirdness, and concern about apply GAC to children that, for a lack of better word, is on the borderline - maybe we should wait it out and see. I repeat, parent going through this is nightmarish, and the politic is really fk it up for those who need good evidence and advice. I again say there is room for the US gov to play a role here, to require, for example, an actual multidisciplinary team approach with clear communication on risks and unknowns. Heck, make provider jump through extra hoops to ensure providers they have very good justification for recommending treatments. But an outright ban of treatments is just wrong - that itself is treating all of the trans as guinea pigs, just one done by the government.
My body my choice folks now back tracking on this topic? I for one think generally most parents are doing what's best for their kid or what they think is best for their kid (the other percentage r the degenerates who abandon/starve/abuse their kids). Why are folks against parents making decisions for their kid with stuff they don't agree with? If the kids want it, the parent does the research and finds no problem with it, what's the problem?
That's the degenerate portion of the parents I mentioned. Having sex with your kid isn't wanting what best for the child what a stupid example. That's like saying if the kid wants to commit suicide and the dad is ok with it, what's the problem? No general parent is "okay" with their kid dying similar to how no general parent is down to fk their kid.
You are missing the point. You think a kid can consent to having body parts chopped off and hormones altered. They cant in the same way a kid cant consent to sex.
Of course this issue is being exploited. Most things in society do get exploited For political gain these day. as I’ve stated yes there are risk to gender transitioning treatments especially to minors. I agree that is a legitimate concern. What I’m against is a blanket legal ban on such treatments. To claim that such treatments should never be allowed or have no place is the extreme big government solution that as posters noted is anything but conservative. That we can’t have a reasonable discussion on this and consider reasonable regulation is just another example of the course mess of society. That much of this debate is about combing through Twitter and finding examples of mostly adult trans people acting outrageously is more about riling people up and shutting down actual discussion.
The point is if the parent does the research the parent has the right to make that decision in what's best for their kid. It's a similar stance to what anti Vax folks have. I don't agree with it but they aren't my kid. If u are a health care professional, u can inform them or attempt to educate them but in the end its up to the parent to make that decision for their kid. Their body, their choice.
If a parent has done the research and thinks having sex with their kid is whats best for the kid then they should get to have sex with the kid?
