Ohio Governor's Transgender Decision

[icehorse]

All of the treatment methods you listed are gender-affirming care. All of them are banned when gender-affirming care is banned.

No, talk therapy is not banned. (If I'm wrong about talk therapy, then we have some common ground, talk therapy should not be banned.)

 

[icehorse]

For what an epidemiological study, or for where you acknowledged the studies with controls?

The only article I acknowledged I disagree with.

Show me a study that compares long term mental health outcomes between kids who received only talk therapy with those who received talk therapy plus drugs and/or surgeries.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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.

Because this is not a people for the government. It's the government for the people.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because this is not a people for the government. It's the government for the people.

And that not only makes no sense you got the quote wrong as well. It seems that anything that you do not like is "nanny state" even if it is well supported. Any limitations that you do like make perfect sense, supposedly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But in this case we CAN have control groups. We can have a group that receives only talk therapy. We can have another group that receives only the first drug intervention. Another the second, another both, and finally a group that receives drugs and surgeries.

And then we can do longitudinal studies to see what MENTAL HEALTH outcomes are achieved.

One thing we know is that many kids with GD outgrow it and discover that they're gay.

No, that would be immoral to limit therapy in that way. In fact morals are a big part of any study where one group gets the medicine and another does not.

By the way, you should be addressing the case in the OP. The governor vetoed a bill that would have banned all of those therapies, and what is being allowed as a result are the drugs that prevent or delay the onset of puberty. His veto does not make surgery legal before 18. In people that are biologically male puberty can cause very large irreversible changes. You are handicapping those people for life with your approach. My apologies to any of our transpeople, and I will put this in a spoiler, but most of us have seen the very masculine looking transwoman that corrected someone by saying "It is ma'am". This sort of problem would be avoided if the person was not forced to go through puberty before they could start to transition:

Spoiler

 

[libre]

My apologies to any of our transpeople, and I will put this in a spoiler, but most of us have seen the very masculine looking transwoman that corrected someone by saying "It is ma'am". This sort of problem would be avoided if the person was not forced to go through puberty before they could start to transition:

It's a good detail to bring up.
People who want to ban minors from GAC are really just subjecting them to an irreversible puberty that may cause the child harm. They wash their hands of it by saying it's just natural, but the reality is that they are forcing children to be assigned the gender those that want to ban GAC are more comfortable with.

In my view, people should have a right to decide which puberty they go through. Making trans people go through a puberty that they do not want causes harm. Trans people have the right to choose which puberty they want, anyone who would interfere with this can fairly be labelled anti-trans.

 

[icehorse]

This sort of problem would be avoided if the person was not forced to go through puberty before they could start to transition:

But what if a person grows out of GD and discovers they're gay? Your approach precludes that from happening, correct?

No, that would be immoral to limit therapy in that way. In fact morals are a big part of any study where one group gets the medicine and another does not.

But you think it's moral to perform irreversible interventions on kids who might not need them?

 

[libre]

But you think it's moral to perform irreversible interventions on kids who might not need them?

If the kid transitions and is happy with the results, why is it so bothersome to you that they might not have needed it?
Why do you see transition as such a bad thing? Do you agree that a person has a right to identify what their own gender is?

 

[Subduction Zone]

But what if a person grows out of GD and discovers they're gay? Your approach precludes that from happening, correct?

They can still go through puberty, but at a later age. The main difference is that they will probably not be quite as tall and may be slightly more effeminate looking due to that delay. It is not an easy choice, but even more important it is not a choice that we should make for them.

But you think it's moral to perform irreversible interventions on kids who might not need them?

There will be some irreversible changes either way. It is not up to you or me to decide. And kids are not making these choices on their own. They do have professional help that they are almost always required to get first. Is it possible for a counselor to try to put their own beliefs on the child? Yes, but most that get into that profession do so to help others live their best lives. They do not do it to live what the counselor thinks is their best lives.

What on Earth makes you think that the state, which would have no knowledge of the children at all, could do a better job?

And that reminds me of @Twilight Hue , this is a case where the government is being told to "Butt out" yet he seems to oppose this. Where is he with his "nanny state" claims?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

How arrogant do you have to be to assume you know better than I know what is going on inside of my head? A little humility might be in order; perhaps a start by not allowing your ignorance and lack of imagination to cause you to assume the worse in those who disagree with you. IOW if you want to know why someone disagree with you, ASK! Don't immediately assume evil intentions.

Denying medically accepted treatments IS to cause and do harm to another.

 

[Heyo]

But what if a person grows out of GD and discovers they're gay? Your approach precludes that from happening, correct?

But what if a cancer patient goes into spontaneous remission? Your approach (treating cancer) precludes that from happening.

But you think it's moral to perform irreversible interventions on kids who might not need them?

Removing a part of your body just because it is cancerous is also an irreversible intervention and both death and spontaneous remission are natural outcomes. Why intervene?

 

[Kfox]

I wasn't speaking to your motives. You literally support measures that hurt kids. Why you're doing this is something I don't know (and don't really care to know).

Another might say if you support surgery to remove perfectly healthy body parts on children based on how they feel at the moment, you support measures that harm kids

 

[Kfox]

But what if a cancer patient goes into spontaneous remission? Your approach (treating cancer) precludes that from happening.

Removing a part of your body just because it is cancerous is also an irreversible intervention and both death and spontaneous remission are natural outcomes. Why intervene?

You can't compare surgery based on that which is real vs surgery based on a child's imagination. Cancer is real, GD is all in your head.

 

[icehorse]

If the kid transitions and is happy with the results, why is it so bothersome to you that they might not have needed it?
Why do you see transition as such a bad thing? Do you agree that a person has a right to identify what their own gender is?

There are at least two other outcomes:

1 - A gay kid has been sterilized
2 - The kid has transitioned and then realized they weren't trans.

Why are you so willing to risk confused, gay kids?

 

[libre]

You can't compare surgery based on that which is real vs surgery based on a child's imagination. Cancer is real, GD is all in your head.

Gender dysphoria is a real condition, that the distress caused by gender dysphoria is psychological distress does not make the condition 'imaginary'. This is an ignorant position.

 

[icehorse]

They can still go through puberty, but at a later age. The main difference is that they will probably not be quite as tall and may be slightly more effeminate looking due to that delay. It is not an easy choice, but even more important it is not a choice that we should make for them.

There are fequently much more severe side effects, including a life long dependency on drugs.

There will be some irreversible changes either way. It is not up to you or me to decide. And kids are not making these choices on their own. They do have professional help that they are almost always required to get first. Is it possible for a counselor to try to put their own beliefs on the child? Yes, but most that get into that profession do so to help others live their best lives. They do not do it to live what the counselor thinks is their best lives.

What on Earth makes you think that the state, which would have no knowledge of the children at all, could do a better job?

Well if a GD kid gets only talk therapy and then grows into a gay youth, then no damage has been done. That's the result that GD precludes.

As for counseling - it is too frequently rushed or the result is mostly predetermined.

 

[libre]

2 - The kid has transitioned and then realized they weren't trans.

I agree that it causes a lot of harm for a child go through a puberty that isn't congruent with their identity.
Restricting GAC doesn't solve this problem, it makes it worse by making ALL trans people go through this experience. It forces them to go through a cis puberty, even though they know they are trans.

 

[icehorse]

But what if a cancer patient goes into spontaneous remission? Your approach (treating cancer) precludes that from happening.

That's a whopper of a false equivalency. GD kids growing out of GD is common, spontaneous remission is quite rare.

 

[libre]

1 - A gay kid has been sterilized

In my country fertility options are explored with doctors before the child goes through HRT for both genders.
Much more equitable and human rights based approach than restricting the care.

 

[icehorse]

I agree that it causes a lot of harm for a child go through a puberty that isn't congruent with their identity.
Restricting GAC doesn't solve this problem, it makes it worse by making ALL trans people go through this experience. It forces them to go through a cis puberty, even though they know they are trans.

But it saves a lot of gay kids from needless, lifelong negative side effects.