I recognize the differences between race and gender and how they are not directly comparable. But you do realize that these are the exact same arguments made by segregationists too? I'm in no way accusing you of racism or any of the sort but do you at least see the similarity between the situations and why I would fine both equally nonsensical?
Do you also feel men should be barred from pursing jobs in women's healthcare? Or do you think they are currently barred? Because they aren't.
Again, I wonder if you're understanding me?
I believe a person should be able to choose whether their healthcare provider is a male or a female. This is the PATIENT'S RIGHT, not the healthcare provider's right. So if you insist that a trans woman is a woman (which again, is simply not true), then a female patient who does not want a male healthcare worker might get stuck with a trans woman. And if the patient complained, the patient could be found guilty of a hate crime or some such nonsense.
So if a man has a job in women's health care, and the woman requests a female provider, no harm, no foul, she gets a woman.
This is NOT at all like racism. You simply do NOT speak for all women on this point. If a woman wants privacy, who on earth are you to deny her that? You gonna call her a bigot??????
If you conflate the transitional drugs with the hormone blockers I can see how you come to that conclusion. But we aren't talking about those. Estrogen and ESPECIALLY testosterone have permanent effects. But not the hormone blockers. You have yet to make the case that hormone blockers are neither safe nor reversible.
Thank you for providing those links, I'll look at them tomorrow.
In the meantime, here's some fun reading for you
cass.independent-review.uk
It would seem that in the best case there is professional disagreement as to the safety of these GD drugs.
Now, is it better to err on the side of caution (i.e. first, do no harm), or to err on the side of using drugs that might be dangerous? In general in medicine, we err on the side of caution.
"Social contagion" as a theory is debunk. I am not saying there is zero percent social interactive impact (though social pressure is likely wrong. I guarantee you there are far more people beating the trans out of trans kids than beating the trans into non-trans kids).
Again, please skim through the Cass report I linked to above. That study disagrees with your conclusion that social pressure is not a factor.
As talk therapy should be good for trans kids as well though it doesn't resolve their issues.
Never? I was under the impression that sometimes it does?? You got links for that?
You have made several very black and white claims. In general that's not how healthcare works, so I think when you make a black and white / 100% type of claim, it's extraordinary, and you ought to have some really, really good evidence
So we already do this on a case by case basis. I don't know what else you are asking for other than just barring everyone at the gate no matter how legitimate their issues seem to be. The hoops you mention are already in place. The only difference is that once you get through them you are allowed to transition. Because the health and safety for the children are at the heart of this.
I would be somewhat less concerned if I felt this was the case. I'm sure that sometimes the quality of care is good. But I think it's often no where near as good as we'd hope. Again, skim through the study.
thanks