352
New poll finds strong majority opposes gender-affirming care bans for trans minors
(www.lgbtqnation.com)
this post was submitted on 17 Jun 2024
352 points (93.6% liked)
politics
19072 readers
3789 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
I understand your view however I disagree fundamentally on a few aspects of it.. please bear with this line of questioning:
Why is it imperative they chose so early? (I know the answer but play along... I promise this has a point)
If the reason you stated is physical ... why are we discounting the physical risks associated with the side effects? Do those outweigh the safety and healthy life of that person later in life? Are we overly applying weight to physical appearance over safety? It's common in a lot of other scenarios...
Recall that my assertions are pointed at effectively highschool age and below: not all of a body's development (sexual and otherwise) occurs at this phase. Post highschool the young adult is now able to make decisions (largely) for themselves. Around that time they have a much better sense of identity as well. Is it absolutely critical to force that decision prior to that considering that?
Why not counseling and emotional support during their early development and let them make the decision when they are more legally capable after that time?
That got longer than I wanted but I'm curious what your thoughts are.
Risks of medical intervention always should be weighed against risks of nonintervention. If there is a significant probability a child is trans, delaying puberty may be the least intrusive option. There is a chance of negative effects, like with all medical interventions, but if they are most likely trans forcing them to undergo puberty is much more likely to have long term negative effects (including suicidality). Why is this specific medical decision equivalent to kids having sex? Do you view other procedures, like deciding to have braces, the same way? What about much riskier treatments with a muddled short/long term prognosis, like some heart surgeries?
Agreed. I have expressed as much when discussing adverse effects.
The first statement while correct is ignoring that if they are in fact trans there is a high likelihood of hormone therapy and/or surgery regardless. The statement about the psychological aspects is oft tied to discussions like these: They rarely factor in adolescents in general are an increased risk during this time. Funnily enough councilling and familial support are typically the strongest way to combat most cases which stem from isolation and fear/confusion.
edit: I misread the above and combined it with another discussion from a prior thread. sorry!
Ultimately because the choice can effect you later in life. This is one of the reasons we apply the gravity to it that we do. There are other parallels. In the end we acknowledge that a more developed mind can weigh those pros and cons and make a (more?) informed decision. I absolutely pushed this perspective to 11 to get a response but I firmly believe it is an acceptable equivalent in terms of weight of decision.
~~Hmm... Mostly because sexuality is tied to who we are. Does it determine every aspect of our existence? I'm not freud 😂. No. But it is undeniably a facet in our complex understanding of self~~.
Braces are an interesting choice; they have health benefits as well as effect our outward appearance. Surgeries (as I think I've expressed before) don't quite fall into this category but... If you have a low risk heart condition (relatively speaking) you could dive right in and get surgery (risks) or perhaps wait and do more research on it and become better informed. If anything it would support what I am advocating. (Yes I'm aware you can flip the argument the other way.) I think it's worth acknowledging that in that scenario that the latter decision is typically the recommended one.
I'm sorry, which of these questions are literal and which are rhetorical? If they are trans, then deciding before a cis puberty is less harmful.
Mostly literal. The first couple are low ball rhetorical - the reasoning is typically appearance based. Voices can change too. I understand the urge to nip that in the bud however we are talking about someone who is far too young to have any certainty on the matter. Suffice to say I know very well about this and have multiple examples but cannot expand on this further. I will say that while it is not often talked about (often because of the backlash) not all adolescents who believe they are the wrong gender end up deciding they aren't. This too is the cause for a lot of tragic stories. With that in mind is my suggestion/assertions off base? Time is a concern, and is a relevant argument... but why risk early development over a few years against a lifetime where good health is an asset?
There's a chance of a tragic story no matter what - if the kid goes through puberty with the wrong hormones, it's going to negatively impact their health forever. These choices need to be weighed on an individual basis with doctor and parental involvement, not one choice for everyone until an arbitrary legal age.
Your initial comment is removed, what was that you compared it to again?
As a direct answer to your statement (your question warranted a separate thread):
I agree on case by case. Some will be clear cut but kids are malleable and uncertain. They have very little worldly experience to draw on and need to be protected... universally. My reaction to posts and positions such as this one is visceral. Too many people will bandwagon the ideal and 'virtue' of it and in doing so propose overly simplified ideas that aren't a real (or complete) solution. It's social media - I expect the response I got to a degree but it is pleasant when it yields a good discussion. It may benefit someone later to be able to observe those views and see that it is possible to discuss differences in opinions without a firefight.
Yeah, I saw that. Apparently rule 3... despite most of the interactions being civil. I petitioned its return as I think it adds context and is worth the discussion:
I made a spoiler text analog to a statement that we should allow underaged (implied age which we have been discussing) adolescents to have complete sexual freedom. Some people clearly stopped reading and took that to some impressive extremes. I had prefaced and followed the statement with an indication that we wouldn't allow such a thing (and rightly so.) The statement's intent was to illustrate that we cannot expect someone so young to make informed decisions about certain things.
I believe in a follow-up statement I expanded saying it was equally incorrect for someone else to make that decision for the child/adolescent. It's too important.
I selected it for its fairly universal acceptance and (as I've mentioned) some similar gravity in allowing them to make those decisions so early.