-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Ohio Governor's Transgender Decision
- Thread starter metis
- Start date
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Precisely, and that should extend into the many other issues of the nanny state that the people should decide for themselves and not the government as to what what they can and cannot do as long as it's in the legal realm of the law that is properly passed which means bipartisan support.
Now we have ...
Former President Donald Trump criticized Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine on Saturday for striking down legislation that would have restricted the medical care of transgender minors and banned transgender girls from female sports.
"DeWine has fallen to the Radical Left. No wonder he gets loudly booed in Ohio every time I introduce him at Rallies, but I won’t be introducing him any more. I’m finished with this 'stiff.' What was he thinking," Trump posted on Truth Social. "The bill would have stopped child mutilation, and prevented men from playing in women’s sports. Legislature will hopefully overturn. Do it FAST!!!” [source]
This is not the first time that DeWine tilted in favor of "the right thing." See, for example, the AP's
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
The government only tends to react when there is evidence that supports their reaction. Why do you oppose that? You are not a creationist but you argue just like one when it comes to the government.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I count three and me. I separated myself out because before I posted I realized that I misread the OP. I saw a post that indicated that I was wrong and then read the article. I can see how people would misread it. And of the the three that appeared to misread it two side with the Democrats usually and one always sides with the Republicans. The other three that posted before you all got it. They at least read the OP properly and probably the article. So in reality you have three out of seven that jumped to conclusions before posting that wrote before your post.
Hope everyone forgives me, but this response contains a bit of a "shout-out" to @PureX. I do, in the end, have some faith that when given the opportunity -- in private, as in the voting booth -- Americans, Canadians, most people in the world accustomed to benefits of freedom of thought and democratic participation will more often do the right thing than not. I look back over my 75 years, and I know that not every election has put in office (federally, provincially, municipally) my favoured candidate, but very rarely have they put in office those who would do great harm. For that reason, I am a person who accepts without question the results of democratic elections. I always have.
Just as a thought experiment, what if the topic had been opioids? We trusted "the medical establishment" with our lives when it came to opioids.
Just so you know, the evidence for "gender affirming care" is ALL of low quality. One important data point is that "gender affirming care" is based on the Dutch Protocol, and there were NO CONTROL GROUPS when the Dutch protocol was created.
Thank you.
The question is, who is the most qualified to analyze the quality of the evidence?
I've heard of DeWine but not many details. My first thought is if he's playing good cop and the legislature will play bad cop. Republicans are a catastrophe of principles, and who knows what they are up to when they frame legislation against groups of marginalized citizens for the sake of feeding their base. I heard a report on npr about this, and the legislature can override the veto with a 3/5 vote.
Why is this legislation at all?
When the medical establishment is FOR profit then their decisions will be profit motivated. I suest making healthcare exclusively non-profit would help the money making motive.
Thanks for your expert opinion. Maybe you should make these decisions for all trans people since you know best.
Heyo
Veteran Member
Seems DeWine is a republican who holds up republican values. It was bound to happen when a parties policies contradict each other.
Heyo
Veteran Member
Seems DeWine is a republican who holds up republican values. It was bound to happen when a parties policies contradict each other.
From a recent thread, a bunch of information for you since I know you'd like to get to the truth:
The evidence supporting "gender affirming care" is of very low reliability
And @fantome profane - assuming yours was a good faith question, the link above has some answers.
Last edited:
So, clearly, we would be far better off trusting a cohort with no expertise or some uninformed personal bias? Great experiment!
@libre wrote on that thread:
This is truth.
I had a girlfriend some yers ago whose daughter wanted to transition. I knew nothing about it, and was against it. But the girl was 21, and it had nothing to do with my opinion. All we could do is decide to support her wishes, or be judgmental and unsupportive. We looked into it to see what transition was all about. There was not a lot about it then, but it was something she needed to do. We have kept in touch over the last decade and Cass has done transition with the help of medical and psychological experts, and Cass has been very happy ever since. More happy than before. I decided to offer my support, because my judgment is irrelevant. What is important is that Cass is happy and has support.
Is transition a perfect type of care? No. Neither is plastic surgery, as those procedures can be a disaster. Surgery as a whole is not perfect, and complications happen. Your criticism against transition seems biased, that you expect it to be at a level of perfection that isn't possible in medicine and treatment. To my mind trans people are aware of the risks, and if they make a decision for themselves then so be it. Who are you to assume responsibilty over their lives and decisions? Do you really want to steal their agency?
Last edited:
see post #35 for a link
From f1fan and libre:
Yes, we hear that claim frequently. But step back and consider what's required to come to such a conclusion. I'm happy for the good result reported above, but without control groups IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW why the good outcome happened. It could have also been a good outcome if the only intervention was talk therapy.
The topic is GAC for people under 21. Once a person turns 21 they should have agency as long as they're not hurting others.
The topic is youth with gender dysphoria. We do not know whether they will end up trans or not. Many end up going through puberty and being gay.
As for my "anti-trans contributions" - find one. My only issue is with doing irreversible medical interventions on youth, when we know that many such youth will grow past GD.
Yes, we hear that claim frequently. But step back and consider what's required to come to such a conclusion. I'm happy for the good result reported above, but without control groups IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW why the good outcome happened. It could have also been a good outcome if the only intervention was talk therapy.
The topic is GAC for people under 21. Once a person turns 21 they should have agency as long as they're not hurting others.
The topic is youth with gender dysphoria. We do not know whether they will end up trans or not. Many end up going through puberty and being gay.
As for my "anti-trans contributions" - find one. My only issue is with doing irreversible medical interventions on youth, when we know that many such youth will grow past GD.
Thanks -- I noticed it the first time. I'm still unclear concerning the subtext of your thought experiment.