Marjorie Taylor-Greene Seeks to Criminalize Gender-Affirming Care for Minors

[Fuzzy Bear]

Why can't the right just mind their own business when it comes to peoples' bodies?

And don't try even try and conflate vaccines to this!

You can't have that both ways.

And no one should let anyone have that both ways.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I'll ask again: why the hell are cons so obsessed with having control over other people's genitals

It's about keeping trans people in their place as "others" and not allowing them to feel normal or be treated as normal. Otherwise, the next thing you know, half the neighbourhood will be trans and our kids will either bring trans kids over to play or becomes trans themselves. We have to stop it before it gets out of hand!

They should be given the same compassion as every other person with mental illness is. Speaking as someone diagnosed with mental illness, that means: treat it and stop celebrating it.

If allowing adults to get HRT means it’ll stop being pushed on 5 year olds, I’d take that deal. Hell, I’d even be willing to pay for subsidized bottom surgeries for adults if it means they’d leave kids alone.
 
No one celebrates depression, anxiety disorder, BPD or body dysmorphia disorder. I do not see any push for “education” on these things to be taught to kindergarteners. No one says that if a little kid has an imaginary friend, they’re definitely schizophrenic or operating under a mental illness. There are no children’s books about other mental illnesses.

If you want to treat being trans as a mental illness, that means you have to give trans people effective treatment. And the only effective treatment for gender dysphoria is transition. And also you shouldn't stigmatize mental illness.

I agree with the highlighted portions.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I'll add this little fun anecdote: it isn't entirely uncommon for teenage boys to be prescribed 5AR inhibitors to treat hair loss. These drugs block hormones (DHT) to prevent hair loss. Dermatologists sometimes prescribe these drugs to minors. I don't see any outcry about "potentially reversible side effects" or anything like that. Now, one can argue that this is because few are aware that this is done, which is true, but I'll guess that even if everyone in America was made aware of this, there would be no outcry whatsoever.

To be clear, I think you'd be a really dense person, basically a moron, to take issue with this. Why? People should have autonomy over what they put into their own body. It's their life, not your life. Mind your own business and move on, sickos. That said, I think it's telling that there's a lot of controversy over "puberty blockers!!!" but no one is discussing "irreversible side-effects" of giving those of short stature human growth hormone (actually quite risky!) or this case or a myriad of others. I specifically selected these because they are cosmetic treatments not dissimilar to gender transition.

edit: I'll elaborate more on giving human growth hormone to teenagers who are of "idiopathic" short-stature since it's probably a better example. It's fairly dangerous to do this, whereas you can't really say that about my other example. "the risk of developing a cardiovascular event like a heart attack or stroke was two-thirds higher for men and twice as high for women than among 50,036 untreated but otherwise similar people." and this treatment is given to teenagers because they'll end up being shorter than average. It's totally cosmetic!

I just saw this comment and I think it's a shame no one responded to it because it is interesting. I don't know anything about the short-stature treatment so I won't comment on it, though from what you've said I'd probably lean towards opposing that too depending on the patient's specific situation. I have never heard of minors being prescribed medications to reverse or prevent male-pattern baldness, so I googled it and all of the results state explicitly that finasteride (the most common and apparently only approved pill to prevent hair loss) is untested and unapproved for use in children and adolescents and that the current practice is to not prescribe to women or children. It's possible that dermatologists are prescribing these drugs to minors, but they're not supposed to. I've never heard of anyone having such an aggressive case of male baldness that they've lost their hair by the time they reach legal adulthood so, yes, I really don't see why they would need to receive these drugs before that. Though to be fair, I think 16 is a decent compromise for the gender treatment stuff so I support it in this case too.

The other difference is that the side effects are nowhere near as severe or universal as the puberty-blocker/cross-sex hormones side effects, and in their case the most irreversible effects are the intent of the treatment. The huge difference is that the premise behind 5AR inhibitors is clear: a man is losing his hair and these drugs will prevent that and these are the side effects. The premise behind gender-affirmation for children is that the child is depressed because of their body, so preventing the body from developing naturally is the only way to treat their depression. I don't accept that premise. It's like jumping to the most extreme treatment before it's a last resort.

To be fair to your side of the argument, I understand why you jump to the conclusion that opposition to this is motivated by bigotry. Most people who are opposed to gender-affirming care don't have any interest the ethical questions that they bring up. For example, most of them are totally fine with chopping up babies' penises for no reason but they're opposed to puberty blockers and that's because they're frauds and hypocrites who probably do just have a problem with trans people specifically and this is their PC way of expressing. But I'm opposed to these treatments being used on children for reasons that I think are consistent.

I will state that circumcision is a lot less invasive than these kinds of hormones and surgeries that is used for people who are transitioning, but I suppose that's because I don't know any differently. 

Just listening to the sort of "treatments" and "procedures" that go into "transitioning" sounds horrible.  Barbaric, even.  It's far from uninvasive, and says nothing for what happens to people who end up with Trans Remorse, which does happen.  In just about any other medical or mental disorder I can think of, the course of treatment always mandates the least restrictive/invasive mode of treatment, yet here we are, skipping right through to Z. 

I certainly believe that Gender Dysphoria is a real condition, but I do not believe that its only remedy are these extreme treatments, period.  And I certainly don't believe that anyone under 18 should be allowed to do any of this without parental consent.  When I was 16 I didn't think my mother understood anything.  When I was 36 I came to realize that my mother understood more than I gave her credit for.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I'll add this little fun anecdote: it isn't entirely uncommon for teenage boys to be prescribed 5AR inhibitors to treat hair loss. These drugs block hormones (DHT) to prevent hair loss. Dermatologists sometimes prescribe these drugs to minors. I don't see any outcry about "potentially reversible side effects" or anything like that. Now, one can argue that this is because few are aware that this is done, which is true, but I'll guess that even if everyone in America was made aware of this, there would be no outcry whatsoever.

To be clear, I think you'd be a really dense person, basically a moron, to take issue with this. Why? People should have autonomy over what they put into their own body. It's their life, not your life. Mind your own business and move on, sickos. That said, I think it's telling that there's a lot of controversy over "puberty blockers!!!" but no one is discussing "irreversible side-effects" of giving those of short stature human growth hormone (actually quite risky!) or this case or a myriad of others. I specifically selected these because they are cosmetic treatments not dissimilar to gender transition.

edit: I'll elaborate more on giving human growth hormone to teenagers who are of "idiopathic" short-stature since it's probably a better example. It's fairly dangerous to do this, whereas you can't really say that about my other example. "the risk of developing a cardiovascular event like a heart attack or stroke was two-thirds higher for men and twice as high for women than among 50,036 untreated but otherwise similar people." and this treatment is given to teenagers because they'll end up being shorter than average. It's totally cosmetic!

I just saw this comment and I think it's a shame no one responded to it because it is interesting. I don't know anything about the short-stature treatment so I won't comment on it, though from what you've said I'd probably lean towards opposing that too depending on the patient's specific situation. I have never heard of minors being prescribed medications to reverse or prevent male-pattern baldness, so I googled it and all of the results state explicitly that finasteride (the most common and apparently only approved pill to prevent hair loss) is untested and unapproved for use in children and adolescents and that the current practice is to not prescribe to women or children. It's possible that dermatologists are prescribing these drugs to minors, but they're not supposed to. I've never heard of anyone having such an aggressive case of male baldness that they've lost their hair by the time they reach legal adulthood so, yes, I really don't see why they would need to receive these drugs before that. Though to be fair, I think 16 is a decent compromise for the gender treatment stuff so I support it in this case too.

The other difference is that the side effects are nowhere near as severe or universal as the puberty-blocker/cross-sex hormones side effects, and in their case the most irreversible effects are the intent of the treatment. The huge difference is that the premise behind 5AR inhibitors is clear: a man is losing his hair and these drugs will prevent that and these are the side effects. The premise behind gender-affirmation for children is that the child is depressed because of their body, so preventing the body from developing naturally is the only way to treat their depression. I don't accept that premise. It's like jumping to the most extreme treatment before it's a last resort.

To be fair to your side of the argument, I understand why you jump to the conclusion that opposition to this is motivated by bigotry. Most people who are opposed to gender-affirming care don't have any interest the ethical questions that they bring up. For example, most of them are totally fine with chopping up babies' penises for no reason but they're opposed to puberty blockers and that's because they're frauds and hypocrites who probably do just have a problem with trans people specifically and this is their PC way of expressing. But I'm opposed to these treatments being used on children for reasons that I think are consistent.

I will state that circumcision is a lot less invasive than these kinds of hormones and surgeries that is used for people who are transitioning, but I suppose that's because I don't know any differently.  

Just listening to the sort of "treatments" and "procedures" that go into "transitioning" sounds horrible.  Barbaric, even.  It's far from uninvasive, and says nothing for what happens to people who end up with Trans Remorse, which does happen.  In just about any other medical or mental disorder I can think of, the course of treatment always mandates the least restrictive/invasive mode of treatment, yet here we are, skipping right through to Z.  

I certainly believe that Gender Dysphoria is a real condition, but I do not believe that its only remedy are these extreme treatments, period.  And I certainly don't believe that anyone under 18 should be allowed to do any of this without parental consent.  When I was 16 I didn't think my mother understood anything.  When I was 36 I came to realize that my mother understood more than I gave her credit for.

It's a lot less reversible though!

I have no idea what I'd do if I were restored to original settings, lol.