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
19097 readers
3759 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
They JUST told you, no one is advocating for surgeries in children. What they are advocating for is what has been done for ages - puberty blockers and therapy until they are of the age to make the decision for themselves.
You keep referring to “surgery” and now “chemical therapy” (I assume you mean hormones), but that’s not at all what is supposed to happen with children, it’s a straw man made up by by the right wing.
You say “it’s our job to give them time to grow into a decision or an identity before making a lasting choice” and that’s EXACTLY what's been happening and is still under assault by these anti-trans laws that keep getting passed in the confederate states.
They don’t want them to exist so they are trying to legislate them away.
Blockers are still a change. Inhibiting your sexuality at that age drives a bigger rift between you and your peers. More so than feeling a bit different. I was blessed enough to grow up with a profoundly diverse group of friends and we supported each other regardless of our choices in sexuality as we grew into our identity. Choosing to deny a change may as well isolate them further.
To your point about state laws against trans rights there is a LOT to unpack there but I was very clear about my stance of protect and support but do not intervene (in development.)
Puberty blockers are used after talking with a doctor and determining that the benefits of delaying puberty outweigh the potential risks. That's how pretty much everything is prescribed for everyone, including children.
In a lot of these cases, the risk of not delaying puberty can include self-harm, suicide, adult gender dysphoria, less social acceptance as an adult, and being less satisfied with life as an adult.
It's a balance. This isn't a disease - many of the things you listed are psychological and the result of how family and friends treat that person. It's not terribly different from someone starting to realize they may be gay, asexual, or any other of many non-typical alignments. We shouldn't be so quick to push someone on the path for drugs when what they need is time and emotional support.
The DSM entry on Gender Dysphoria disagrees.
What’s your source for this?
Also, I’m not sure I would describe someone going through this process as “feeling a bit different”.
The great thing about blockers is that you can stop them if they aren’t right for you.
Am I reading this correct that you seem to think that your “don’t let anyone take puberty blockers” stance is somehow protecting and supporting? And preventing others that from being able to do so is “not intervening”?
Growing up. Life experiences of myself and friends.
Kids are shitty and form cliques. Frequently. If your opinion or (perish the thought) your appearance were to differ - it makes you a far bigger target. Taking something to increase that difference will result in more of that behavior.
On blockers:
I won't disagree that blockers are a gentler approach but they are not a magic bullet and do actually run the risk of lasting effects. Very little long term research has been done outside of animals and frankly I don't think testing on children is the best way to go about it.
Much like steroids or any other drug you can absolutely stop if you don't think it's for you but what of the physical changes that occur in the meantime? Side effects are known and listed on even the mayo clinic website. Ill reiterate: why are we letting children take on these additional risks as if they don't exist?
On your first point, does the evidence show that taking puberty blockers makes you more socially isolated? I have seen no evidence of that at all, and instead there's a mountain of evidence that social transition and puberty blockers lower suicidality in trans kids and increase mental health outcomes.
We've been using puberty blockers, not just for trans kids but for precocious puberty for decades and have more than enough long term evidence of their effectiveness and safety. No drug or procedure is without risk, but why is that only a problem for this issue? Are you also against kids getting chemo? I mean, they certainly don't fully understand the risks of chemo do they?
The question of consent and knowledge of risk is a red herring. Kids can't consent to any medical procedures or sex because we've defined consent that way. But consent from the patient is not always needed for medical procedures, especially when the patient is unable to give consent. Should coma patients still get care that has risks? They can't consent right?
Consent is given by the parents and the medical professionals who have the authority to make those decisions. You can ask the kid, and they usually do, but their consent does not matter. That's how all medical procedures work with kids.
In reality, your statements lay bare a bias, which is why you're getting downvoted. You only seem to care about risks and consent for this specific highly-politicized topic and not medical procedures broadly. Because this is not about a broad critique of consent, it's about trying to excuse your uncomfortablity with this one subject and trying to justify it in any way you can.
You don't have to understand it, and you don't have to agree with it, but you should at least recognize why the majority of major medical institutions make the recommendations they do. And, shockingly, it's not because they somehow forgot it was involving kids, it's because they know a little more about the topic and nuances than you do.
Most of those tests you refer to also involve therapy / councilling in combination with the drugs and very few compare the two. Further there aren't a ton of studies that involve blind tests and placebos. I'll stress again that I am not against this therapy - I am against it so early in the adolescents development process.
Which is why it's an allowed treatment, yes. But many drugs have multiple usages and in fact multiple doses which affects the end result. Dialing back an aggressive hormonal rush is a bit different than seeking to prevent it outright: which is the goal sought in this case. There are health risks to doing this and as I have asserted elsewhere: urgency is manufactured here. An adolescent needs to feel loved and supported at that stage- not like a mistake that needs immediate care.
This is why I made the example I did. They cannot provide consent (as it isn't informed - even if it is explained to them.) This isn't a life or death decision that needs to be made immediately. It involves the rest of that childs hopefully long life. I see no reason to rush into a decision involving drugs which may impact that. And this is, in fact, how most medical professionals should (and do) approach that.
Please detail how "too early for consent" somehow means "not at all". That's illogical. I support (as I have said multiple times) consentual therapy... but not that early. Consent should be given by the adolescent when they are legally and mentally capable of making such a choice. My statements and stance are very clear. If you disagree with it that's perfectly fine. You are entitled to your opinion as well... but don't go manufacturing some narrative as to what I believe or who I am.
I covered this above but most recommended therapy/counseling first then move onto drugs. I'm reasonably confident.
While on the topic of what professionals do: My family is littered with medical professionals ranging from people who develop drugs, work with children who need said drugs, are pediatricians and so on. It's a long list. From the development side there are a number of educators as well. K-12, special needs... you name it. I personally travel between hospitals for work and rub elbows with some fantastically bright individuals in many fields. I suspect I may know a thing about what is recommended and how testing is done - but please explain it further to me if you feel I lack perspective.
Perhaps some of your preconceived notions about me may be changing? I am advocating for the child, the adolescent, the individual - who needs the proper care... rather than being part of the wailing masses too busy virtue signaling and brigadeing to actually discuss what is right rather than what feels good.
Don't pull this shit again. You are against the use of puberty blockers because there would be no use for them after the person is done with puberty. You want them to wait until they are 18, when they are done with the vast majority of physical effects to start treatment. And the only reason you've given is "I just don't think they need it yet, they need love not drugs." Present evidence of harm or shut the fuck up. You're fear-mongering over something you don't understand and it has actual harm to other people.
If you think the use is so different that the dangers outweigh the risks then prove it. The institutions that study this don't. The organizations that make policy based on those studies don't. You don't get to just "but it feels different" you have to provide evidence that it is different and harmful in a way the other studies wouldn't have caught.
It's "not at all" for puberty blockers because, again, you want kids to go through puberty before undergoing any gender therapy. If you had studied this at all you'd know why the medical organizations recommend starting before puberty. Puberty is the harm they are looking to alleviate and you can't do that by waiting until after puberty to start treatment.
I'll read your intentions as much as I want because you're a fucking book. It's easy to see exactly why you are here and making the arguments you are. Do you really think this is the first time most of us have seen a "just asking questions" and "this is pedophilia" argument? You don't have to tell me you're a duck, you already walked and talked like one.
I don't give a fuck about your family or friends. Do you have a medical degree? Did you do any studies on this matter? Do you have any relevant training or expertise?
They are changing, but not in the way you think. I've read this book before, I know how it ends. That said, I'm enjoying wasting your time and calling you the bigot you are. I have a feeling you don't hear that enough in your life so I'm happy to provide that for you.
You are advocating for your own feels. If you actually gave a flying fuck about the kids this affects you'd follow the recommendations of the people who actually studied this shit. Or at least present even one piece of evidence.
Devolving the discussion into whatever that bile you spit out seems to suggest you have nothing further add. Skimming over it only confirms you lack a functional capacity to understand examples and exercise some basic reasoning. Continuing, while certainly amusing, would do nothing for the conversation. Find some peace friend.
Ahhhhh did someone get their fee fees hurt? Do you have a boo boo? Show me on the doll where the mean commenter hurt you. I can send you a bandaid if you need.
You could have just provided any evidence at all but I know that must have been hard for you. Your bald-ass assertion of bigotry deserves no respect and neither do you. But I guess you can't handle the same vitriol you spew when it's turned back on you, huh?
Fuck you and your faux civility.
I have to admit I didn't think that jab would regress you any further. Color me impressed. Most people would stop before behaving that embarrassingly. That got an audible laugh out of me.
What's embarrassing is your absolute failure to provide even a shred of evidence for your fear mongering. What's even more embarrassing is your weak ass attempt at civility politics. You can't start out with a post conflating trans youth with pedophilia, acknowledging that it's an insane position, and then act shocked when people aren't nice to you.
Once again, fuck you, fuck your feelings, fuck your civility politics. Craw back into the cesspool you spawned from. You don't deserve to be treated kindly. You deserve to suffer as much as the people your insane opinion would suffer if you got your way. Luckily, as this article shows, your opinions are not shared by most of the public. Have fun wallowing in obscurity you pathetic sack of shit.
Boy wants to be a princess, obviously we should let him have sex.
You're making a slippery slope argument
Puberty blockers should be allowed, not making a decision is still a decision
Gender isn't sexuality.
Do you seriously need someone to explain to you that you can make a decision on one thing and not a decision on another.
Abstractly explain how a child can make a decision on what to eat for dinner but not who they want to have sex with.
Alright so I'm happy to expand on this but you first: You have only said gender isn't what I said it is. Go ahead and explain simply what you believe it is and what you perceive it's purpose to be.
Your dinner statement is comparing apples and oranges but sure, I'll bite:
A child hates brussel sprouts. They know this because they have had them and can form an informed decision based on their experiences. The first time at aunt Mary's party they were bad but that was one time. Since then there have been multiple times of eating and disliking this food. They are sure they don't like them. Experience helps form our decisions. I could continue but I trust you understand and can extrapolate from there.
I'm happy to continue this dialogue (on either front) but would like you to actually place your definitions and where you stand on the table first.
Point 1: gender is sexual
Gender is a social construct around behavioural and social traits, sexuality is who one is sexually attracted to, I honestly cannot see how you can correlate the two beyond "this gender is usually heterosexual".
Point 2: children should not make puberty decisions unless they are mature, and to be mature they must go through puberty
If a child is mature enough to go through puberty, then they should be mature enough to make decisions about their puberty.
Why force someone to go through a puberty they hate, and only after they are finished and the changes become irreversible do you allow them to make a decision on how they wish to mature?
I understand this point of view because I used to also hold it, but I'm trying to express to you that forbidding puberty blockers causes the exact same problem, someone uninformed on a subject comes to regret their action (or inaction).
How about you use a fucking dictionary or the google button on your phone and look it up yourself.
Gender == sex == sexuality
Gender isn't about who you sleep with, or what's in your genes/jeans.
If you want to come here to convince people then do the leg-work yourself.
You opened the dialogue with me, friend. You asked me about my opinion and I explained it. I asked you for the same courtesy and you responded with that. Be civil.
I even made a pretty good example of that laughable comparison you asked me to. Rather pleased with it, tbh.
Now: If what you say is true then nobody would be needing reassignment therapy. It doesn't matter who you sleep with or what's in your pants after all.
Now we know that is not true and there is a difference between a man who is gay and a man who is transitioning to a woman. Further it is absolutely about sexuality. We are sexual beings. Our identity is tethered to it. That is the whole point of the transition. Becoming a ______ (who you believe yourself to be.)
Yes: relationships are not only sexual and can be formed for many reasons ... but to say that it isn't sexual nor tied to what is in your pants is simply incorrect or misinformed.
I didn't ask you for anything and you didn't explain anything to me. This was my first comment in this thread. Maybe take some time and see who you are responding to first?
You can shove your civility politics up your ass. Being civil doesn't make it not bigoted and doesn't make you right.
Since you are too lazy to look them up yourself and do the legwork, I'll do it for you:
Sex refers to a set of biological attributes in humans and animals. It is primarily associated with physical and physiological features including chromosomes, gene expression, hormone levels and function, and reproductive/sexual anatomy. Sex is usually categorized as female or male but there is variation in the biological attributes that comprise sex and how those attributes are expressed.
Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, expressions and identities of girls, women, boys, men, and gender diverse people. It influences how people perceive themselves and each other, how they act and interact, and the distribution of power and resources in society. Gender identity is not confined to a binary (girl/woman, boy/man) nor is it static; it exists along a continuum and can change over time. There is considerable diversity in how individuals and groups understand, experience and express gender through the roles they take on, the expectations placed on them, relations with others and the complex ways that gender is institutionalized in society.
Sexuality is a person's identity in relation to the gender or genders to which they are sexually attracted; the fact of being heterosexual, homosexual, etc.
If your definition is as broad as you imply, everything is your sexuality and therefore kids doing anything and having any options at all are sexual in nature. Your definition is useless.
Forgive me for mistaking your hostility on your -first- interaction for being the same blind hostility the prior poster was expressing. That said: find some chill and be civil. Others can manage it- I'm certain you can as well.
See above.
I'm educated enough to know the definitions and my experiences certainly give me insight to what you are copying and pasting, thank you. As you were dropping into the conversation above maybe provide some insight as to why you think all of these are completely independent of each other. They aren't but please expand.
I mean freud certainly thought so 🤣. Jokes aside- Let's be direct: what do you think developing an identity is? Why do we do it?
I could manage it, but bigotry doesn't deserve respect or civility.
Do they have to be independent to be different things?
Why should your dumbass opinion backed by literally nothing but "my experiences" deserve to be discussed or considered at all? Do you have any skin in this game at all or is being a bigot just a fun pastime for you? Do you have any training in these fields? Any new data to discuss? You've got an uneducated opinion backed by nothing and discounted by the people who actually study this that you think is hot shit because you like the smell of your own farts.
In response: why does your perspective bear more weight than mine? That is an impressive ivory tower you are constructing. My responses have been civil and open. All I am getting from you is angst and presumption... and frankly that's a bad look.
I'm happy to discuss things but I won't hesitate to point out you are acting like a child at present.
Ahhh shucks, I love when bigots think I'm not being civil enough 😊.
Did I come here and post obvious bait to try and convince people? Does my opinion go against the people who study this for a living? Does my position have a complete lack of evidence to support it? It's like you walked in here and posted some bait about the earth being flat, refused to provide a shred of evidence, and are now complaining about our positions not being on equal footing. They aren't. If you want to convince people, and you want to contravene scientific evidence you are the one who has to prove it.
My position bears more weight because there is actual evidence and experts on my side.
Again, your bigotry deserves no respect and your "how very uncouth of you" does nothing. Save the whinging for the safe space you crawled out from. I'm sure all the other bigots will be there to hold your hand and congratulate you.
More generic hand waving and resorting to mudslinging. If I were actually here to troll rather than have a discussion I wouldn't be engaging with others in earnest.
I'm acquainted with your type and identified it early on. You simply mimic the masses rhetoric and have nothing of substance to bring to the table. When pressed you only can get angry and use that to mask this shortcoming. Honestly though, most people can identify this behavior... children do it frequently. Most grow out of it.
I provided you a rope to come back and have civil discourse - you opted to hang yourself with it. Predictable, but a shame.
Ohh of course. You only wanted a civil discussion. That's why you immediately compared trans health care to pedophilia and called your own statement an insane position. That's also why you have continuously failed to provide evidence for a single claim you've made. Ya, you totally just wanted a calm discussion of intellectuals.
I am proud that you think so little of me. It warms my heart. The hate of bigots is the coal my generators need. You keep saying you're going to stop responding but you don't. You know you like it, come on...Keep it going...Fuel my generators baby.
No, in essence gender and sexuality are not the same and you seem to be saying they are. If after discussing with a doctor and parents or legal guardian if the best course of action is to prescribe puberty blockers so they can make an informed decision about hormones when 18 I see nothing wrong with that or equivalent to sexualizing children.
Alright so let's follow this line of thought:
If puberty blockers inhibit hormones and hormones are responsible for the development of our brains and identity: how is hitting pause allowing for an informed decision?
I have more to say on this but I want to keep this discussion focused.
I'm going to need a source that puberty blockers have negative effects on cognitive development to accept that if. If puberty related hormones were necessary to consider someone an adult then people who are missing those hormones or puberty by mutation, disease, etc wouldn't be considered adults which is not the case.
It prevents the acute release of puberty related hormones until they are old enough to be considered an adult under the law and able to make decisions about what they do or don't consent to. The informed decision to prevent permanent changes by taking puberty blockers is made by a medical professional with parental or guardian consent to allow the child to mentally mature and make their own choice about taking hormones. One literary review notes the following positive and negative effects: "Positive outcomes were decreased suicidality in adulthood, improved affect and psychological functioning, and improved social life. Adverse factors associated with use were changes in body composition, slow growth, decreased height velocity, decreased bone turnover, cost of drugs, and lack of insurance coverage. "
This is two different things. It's a fairly well known fact that the maturation of the adolescent mind is during puberty... which is the result of the aforementioned chemicals. I'll further that by saying if you acknowledge someone is chemically different - is stunting that change actually a good thing? The answer isn't known. There are too few peer reviewed studies with sufficient data to provide a credible answer.
As far as considering adulthood - I'd suggest tabling that as it unwinds into some ugly side conversations all of which have validity ... but doesn't belong here. There is a reason we use age as a generic determinant... and that is tied to general brain maturity and experience.
This is the problem. (I've made this assertion elsewhere in this thread) Those hormones are responsible for more than just sexual development. We can't actually pause our bodies. We are bypassing a part of the development phase and saying "see it started again" when in reality it was just continuing for the remaining period it was supposed to be active for. This has side effects. (which you noted- See the definitions and risks on the mayo clinic site.)
Physical implications aside... we get very chicken and egg here: So do the parents recognize the child is the wrong sex and bring them to the doctor ... or the child says I'm the wrong sex and the aforementioned happens? Obviously the latter. Based on that the child is making the decision based on minimal experience and should be given counselling and time to make that decision as they develop. Your mention of self image and suicide is not uncommon amongst teens period. Providing guidance and understanding is how that is solved... but we as Americans are very good at throwing pills at that problem... and frequently do.
None of the known risks or side effects include cognitive impairment, you are attributing to puberty blockers changes to cognitive development without research demonstrating the causal link between limiting puberty hormones and decreased or slowed cognitive development like the known negative effects. I also wouldn't accept increased cognitive development as a positive effect under puberty blockers without justification either. Until there is sufficient justification for either position we are not justified reaching either conclusion.
I am concerned there is and will be increased public resistance to what the medical consensus supports because of the political scapegoating trans people are under, and wonder if we were talking about transhumanism in general instead focused specifically on transgenderism would the resistance be the same.
The discussions you've mentioned would likely start with a child experiencing distress reported to an adult or their parents noticing their distress and working with a medical doctor to identify the causes and treatment plans to consider. In the cases where the distress is related to a lasting pattern of gender dysphoria or gender nonconformity that is one of the criteria for prescribing puberty blockers.
This is a fair point and I will admit I did not have any research in mind when I brought it up... however I believe it's fair to say that of the research that has been done very little focuses on this specific application and it's long term effects.
I loathe politcs involving sexuality period. It's one more way to splinter a community. We absolutely agree here.
While this is the case care should be given to how that information is interpreted. Toys, clothing choices, even colors can simply be a very neutral and innocent interest and may (from the child's perspective) simply be something they enjoy. We as adults can overly assign meaning and weight to these choices which may impact the child's perspective. Psychology in general can bandwagon quite a bit in this regard. I will say it has improved quite a bit but we're all human. I digress. To your point I still believe that counseling is and should be the first step and medication should be (if used) used sparingly and ideally after some time has passed. I still firmly dislike the "it's just a pause button" mentality people have. It's far more complex than that- it needs to be respected as a weighty decision.
If they only knew what hormones do to adults, especially amongst athletes, the psychological changes you could face, including severe depression, anxiety, aggression, and sadly acts of violence and self unaliving. I can't support messing with the natural course of hormones within children.
If you're an adult, by all means, it's your choice. You've experienced life long enough and should be able to decide what to do with yourself.
There are better ways to support a child struggling with their identity than affirming that they aren't right and need drugs to fix themselves. It's not meant that way but it's certainly a perception that isn't uncommon.
Are you stupid or a paedophile?
Gender presentation isn't sexual.
Delaying puberty and living as the opposite gender for a few years during childhood, isn't permanent and can be fully reversed if the child changes their mind.
People like you, who keep insisting on correlating prepubescent children's gender presentation with sexual behaviour, are the permantly damaging danger to these children.
If you ever feel like you're going to harm a child because of these abhorrent sexual thoughts you're having, go to a police station or a hospital and beg them to be locked up and medicated.
Or do the honourable thing and save everyone the harm of having to interact with a paedophile. Nobody of value wants people who sexualise and hurt children in their society.
Why are you sexualising prepubescent children? What the fuck is wrong with you?
Alright I'll play:
Why are you forcing prepubescent children to stay that way? What the fuck is wrong with you?
Am I doing it right?
If you cannot comprehend what I wrote then you clearly are either a child or have the mental capacity of one. I have no issue treating you as such.
What makes you think people are “forcing” them to do this?
You’ve now made it absolutely clear that you are just yet another anti-trans bigot who is pretending to want a conversation, but instead is just trying to weasel your abhorrent views into the public discourse.
You have failed, and everyone here sees through your bullshit.
You are what is wrong with discourse, and you should be ashamed of yourself.
Side note to anyone else reading this: it’s SUPER easy to block people like this on lemmy and there really aren’t as many of these chodes as you’d think - I generally only have to block one or so a month and it makes things a whole lot less contentious once you realize you can just block people who are arguing that their hatred is somehow acceptable.
You appear to be assigning a whole lot of assumptions on me there with a ton of baseless claims. Calm the fuck down.
Based on what you've called me, and insinuated what my stance was: I doubt that sincerely.
And yet others are having a perfectly reasonable conversation about the topic with me without coming to the utterly insane conclusions you have.
I am perfectly happy with my opinions and am willing to discuss them with others. I know it's upsetting that my opinion differs from yours but that is no reason to kick and scream like a petulant child.
I disagree with this guy so fall in line because I said so.
As I said. Petulant child throwing a tantrum.
If someone is that simple minded that they would actually do that - I'm not sure their choice would register as a negative to me.