Transgender lawmaker silenced by Montana House Speaker

[Ferguson97]

https://apnews.com/article/transgender-lawmaker-silenced-montana-censure-ee3e30ee6a1cd7c0faa8fd072d580a94

HELENA, Mont. (AP) — Montana’s House speaker on Thursday refused to allow a transgender lawmaker to speak about bills on the House floor until she apologizes for saying lawmakers would have “blood on their hands” if they supported a bill to ban gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth, the lawmaker said.

Rep. Zooey Zephyr, who was deliberately referred to using male pronouns by some conservative lawmakers demanding her censure, said she will not apologize, creating a standoff between the first-term state lawmaker and Republican legislative leaders.

Speaker Matt Regier refused to acknowledge Zephyr on Thursday when she wanted to comment on a bill seeking to put a binary definition of male and female into state code.

Republicans are garbage human beings.

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

Endorsed for re-election and any office she may pursue afterwards.

EDIT: The lawmaker, to be clear.

[Darthpi – Anti-Florida Activist]

They do have blood on their hands, and she was right to say so.

[No War, but the War on Christmas]

Gen Z hates conservative policies and are slowly voting more. Millennials aren’t getting more conservative with age. For every angry white kid who watches too much Fox News and/or falls into online alt-right cesspools and becomes radicalized, three boomers die.

It’s slowly fade away or dismantle democracy piece by piece for the current Republican Party. So while this of course is despicable and should worry anyone whose paying attention to the common themes perferating throughout the GOP and state level parties in particular... I'm also confident that these are the death rattles of a once culturally powerful demographic force that's in inevitable decline.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Several things going on here.
1. lawmakers are effectively co-workers, and such sharp words about coworkers would generally be punished in some way in most workplaces. There's a reason members of Congress are not allowed to do this sort of thing to their colleagues - it can be destructive to the doing of business if it is permitted without limit. This is not something that is universally held against one side or faction or a universal shield for the other.
2. lawmakers, since they represent constituents, have to balance this, where there is conflicts, with acting on behalf of their constituents, however they see that as being done best. This is, after all, representative democracy.
3. there is a huge clash here between the youngs overall and olds overall on this, though I would argue young conservatives are likely, if anything, generally more hardline on this than their older counterparts. In any case, Zooey Zephyr certainly has a very interesting life backstory.

I personally think Marjorie Taylor Greene is a bigot, demagogue, and a trashy woman overall. But if I was elected to Congress, I would not be allowed to use such words about her on the House floor, and the same would be true in reverse. I would be forced to use weasel words. Perhaps I could put that in a Tweet, but I could certainly not use that in a speech from a podium on the House floor.

Believe it or not, absolute freedom to say whatever you want about any of your colleagues as a member of a legislative body, on the floor of said legislative body, is a right that does not exist. And if it did, then all sense of cohesion and unity in the body could go to die.

[Darthpi – Anti-Florida Activist]

Several things going on here.
1. lawmakers are effectively co-workers, and such sharp words about coworkers would generally be punished in some way in most workplaces. There's a reason members of Congress are not allowed to do this sort of thing to their colleagues - it can be destructive to the doing of business if it is permitted without limit. This is not something that is universally held against one side or faction or a universal shield for the other.
2. lawmakers, since they represent constituents, have to balance this, where there is conflicts, with acting on behalf of their constituents, however they see that as being done best. This is, after all, representative democracy.
3. there is a huge clash here between the youngs overall and olds overall on this, though I would argue young conservatives are likely, if anything, generally more hardline on this than their older counterparts. In any case, Zooey Zephyr certainly has a very interesting life backstory.

I personally think Marjorie Taylor Greene is a bigot, demagogue, and a trashy woman overall. But if I was elected to Congress, I would not be allowed to use such words about her on the House floor, and the same would be true in reverse. I would be forced to use weasel words. Perhaps I could put that in a Tweet, but I could certainly not use that in a speech from a podium on the House floor.

Believe it or not, absolute freedom to say whatever you want about any of your colleagues as a member of a legislative body, on the floor of said legislative body, is a right that does not exist. And if it did, then all sense of cohesion and unity in the body could go to die.

When people are trying to erase your very existence from the law, as Republicans are trying to do with the trans community right now, all expectations of decorum from the group under attack should be cast aside.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Several things going on here.
1. lawmakers are effectively co-workers, and such sharp words about coworkers would generally be punished in some way in most workplaces. There's a reason members of Congress are not allowed to do this sort of thing to their colleagues - it can be destructive to the doing of business if it is permitted without limit. This is not something that is universally held against one side or faction or a universal shield for the other.
2. lawmakers, since they represent constituents, have to balance this, where there is conflicts, with acting on behalf of their constituents, however they see that as being done best. This is, after all, representative democracy.
3. there is a huge clash here between the youngs overall and olds overall on this, though I would argue young conservatives are likely, if anything, generally more hardline on this than their older counterparts. In any case, Zooey Zephyr certainly has a very interesting life backstory.

I personally think Marjorie Taylor Greene is a bigot, demagogue, and a trashy woman overall. But if I was elected to Congress, I would not be allowed to use such words about her on the House floor, and the same would be true in reverse. I would be forced to use weasel words. Perhaps I could put that in a Tweet, but I could certainly not use that in a speech from a podium on the House floor.

Believe it or not, absolute freedom to say whatever you want about any of your colleagues as a member of a legislative body, on the floor of said legislative body, is a right that does not exist. And if it did, then all sense of cohesion and unity in the body could go to die.

Saying that voting for a bill that bans trans kids from potentially life saving care would mean having blood on your hands is not particularly extreme when it comes to this sort of issue.

[fhtagn]

Several things going on here.
1. lawmakers are effectively co-workers, and such sharp words about coworkers would generally be punished in some way in most workplaces. There's a reason members of Congress are not allowed to do this sort of thing to their colleagues - it can be destructive to the doing of business if it is permitted without limit. This is not something that is universally held against one side or faction or a universal shield for the other.
2. lawmakers, since they represent constituents, have to balance this, where there is conflicts, with acting on behalf of their constituents, however they see that as being done best. This is, after all, representative democracy.
3. there is a huge clash here between the youngs overall and olds overall on this, though I would argue young conservatives are likely, if anything, generally more hardline on this than their older counterparts. In any case, Zooey Zephyr certainly has a very interesting life backstory.

I personally think Marjorie Taylor Greene is a bigot, demagogue, and a trashy woman overall. But if I was elected to Congress, I would not be allowed to use such words about her on the House floor, and the same would be true in reverse. I would be forced to use weasel words. Perhaps I could put that in a Tweet, but I could certainly not use that in a speech from a podium on the House floor.

Believe it or not, absolute freedom to say whatever you want about any of your colleagues as a member of a legislative body, on the floor of said legislative body, is a right that does not exist. And if it did, then all sense of cohesion and unity in the body could go to die.

Saying that voting for a bill that bans trans kids from potentially life saving care would mean having blood on your hands is not particularly extreme when it comes to this sort of issue.

 Except life saving care isn't what is being discussed.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Several things going on here.
1. lawmakers are effectively co-workers, and such sharp words about coworkers would generally be punished in some way in most workplaces. There's a reason members of Congress are not allowed to do this sort of thing to their colleagues - it can be destructive to the doing of business if it is permitted without limit. This is not something that is universally held against one side or faction or a universal shield for the other.
2. lawmakers, since they represent constituents, have to balance this, where there is conflicts, with acting on behalf of their constituents, however they see that as being done best. This is, after all, representative democracy.
3. there is a huge clash here between the youngs overall and olds overall on this, though I would argue young conservatives are likely, if anything, generally more hardline on this than their older counterparts. In any case, Zooey Zephyr certainly has a very interesting life backstory.

I personally think Marjorie Taylor Greene is a bigot, demagogue, and a trashy woman overall. But if I was elected to Congress, I would not be allowed to use such words about her on the House floor, and the same would be true in reverse. I would be forced to use weasel words. Perhaps I could put that in a Tweet, but I could certainly not use that in a speech from a podium on the House floor.

Believe it or not, absolute freedom to say whatever you want about any of your colleagues as a member of a legislative body, on the floor of said legislative body, is a right that does not exist. And if it did, then all sense of cohesion and unity in the body could go to die.

When people are trying to erase your very existence from the law, as Republicans are trying to do with the trans community right now, all expectations of decorum from the group under attack should be cast aside.

Whatever good she'll be able to do for the trans community if her complete refusal to accept decorum standards, as defined by the majority of the legislative body she is in, will leave Rs forever keeping her from speaking on the floor, leaving her unable to provide her unique perspective. I guess at least she's a vote against anti-trans bills still.

Half a loaf is better than none. She should have apologized, then slammed MT Rs for their handling of this on Twitter.

[Schiff for Senate]

I mean Zephyr should be allowed to speak, I don't think just disallowing her from speaking and trying to force out an apology is really called for.

And perhaps there is some truth to what she's saying. But I just find the double-standard that does exist. I mean MTG called Alejandro Mayorkas a liar and she was prevented from speaking as well (by a Republican, in fact), and the people who were all over her for saying that (not that they were wrong, mind you) are defending rather than condemning Zephyr when she accuses her colleagues of having "blood on their hands." Idk. Maybe it's not the right comparison but it certainly feels a bit hypocritical.

[Schiff for Senate]

Several things going on here.
1. lawmakers are effectively co-workers, and such sharp words about coworkers would generally be punished in some way in most workplaces. There's a reason members of Congress are not allowed to do this sort of thing to their colleagues - it can be destructive to the doing of business if it is permitted without limit. This is not something that is universally held against one side or faction or a universal shield for the other.
2. lawmakers, since they represent constituents, have to balance this, where there is conflicts, with acting on behalf of their constituents, however they see that as being done best. This is, after all, representative democracy.
3. there is a huge clash here between the youngs overall and olds overall on this, though I would argue young conservatives are likely, if anything, generally more hardline on this than their older counterparts. In any case, Zooey Zephyr certainly has a very interesting life backstory.

I personally think Marjorie Taylor Greene is a bigot, demagogue, and a trashy woman overall. But if I was elected to Congress, I would not be allowed to use such words about her on the House floor, and the same would be true in reverse. I would be forced to use weasel words. Perhaps I could put that in a Tweet, but I could certainly not use that in a speech from a podium on the House floor.

Believe it or not, absolute freedom to say whatever you want about any of your colleagues as a member of a legislative body, on the floor of said legislative body, is a right that does not exist. And if it did, then all sense of cohesion and unity in the body could go to die.

When people are trying to erase your very existence from the law, as Republicans are trying to do with the trans community right now, all expectations of decorum from the group under attack should be cast aside.

Whatever good she'll be able to do for the trans community if her complete refusal to accept decorum standards, as defined by the majority of the legislative body she is in, will leave Rs forever keeping her from speaking on the floor, leaving her unable to provide her unique perspective. I guess at least she's a vote against anti-trans bills still.

Half a loaf is better than none. She should have apologized, then slammed MT Rs for their handling of this on Twitter.

I really don't think she should be forced to apologise, but given that that's the situation here, I'd say that you're probably right - wisest course of action for her is what you said.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I mean Zephyr should be allowed to speak, I don't think just disallowing her from speaking and trying to force out an apology is really called for.

And perhaps there is some truth to what she's saying. But I just find the double-standard that does exist. I mean MTG called Alejandro Mayorkas a liar and she was prevented from speaking as well, and the people who were all over her for saying that (not that they were wrong, mind you) are defending rather than condemning Zephyr when she accuses her colleagues of having "blood on their hands." Idk. Maybe it's not the right comparison but it certainly feels a bit hypocritical.

If anything, telling someone they have "blood on their hands" feels more charged than calling them a liar.

[DrScholl]

A violation of norms would be making an accusation without evidence, not saying that passing particular legislation could make you responsible for the repercussions.

Several things going on here.
1. lawmakers are effectively co-workers, and such sharp words about coworkers would generally be punished in some way in most workplaces. There's a reason members of Congress are not allowed to do this sort of thing to their colleagues - it can be destructive to the doing of business if it is permitted without limit. This is not something that is universally held against one side or faction or a universal shield for the other.
2. lawmakers, since they represent constituents, have to balance this, where there is conflicts, with acting on behalf of their constituents, however they see that as being done best. This is, after all, representative democracy.
3. there is a huge clash here between the youngs overall and olds overall on this, though I would argue young conservatives are likely, if anything, generally more hardline on this than their older counterparts. In any case, Zooey Zephyr certainly has a very interesting life backstory.

I personally think Marjorie Taylor Greene is a bigot, demagogue, and a trashy woman overall. But if I was elected to Congress, I would not be allowed to use such words about her on the House floor, and the same would be true in reverse. I would be forced to use weasel words. Perhaps I could put that in a Tweet, but I could certainly not use that in a speech from a podium on the House floor.

Believe it or not, absolute freedom to say whatever you want about any of your colleagues as a member of a legislative body, on the floor of said legislative body, is a right that does not exist. And if it did, then all sense of cohesion and unity in the body could go to die.

Saying that voting for a bill that bans trans kids from potentially life saving care would mean having blood on your hands is not particularly extreme when it comes to this sort of issue.

 Except life saving care isn't what is being discussed.

You don't get to determine that. If a particular issue can effect a person's mental state enough for them to want to do harm to themselves then whatever care that could reasonably help deter that would be life saving. If a transgender person is having a breakdown over not being able to transition then access to care to transition is life saving. No one is saying that not being able to transition by itself will physically kill someone, but not being able to do so can cause mental anguish that could lead to suicide.

[fhtagn]

A violation of norms would be making an accusation without evidence, not saying that passing particular legislation could make you responsible for the repercussions.

Several things going on here.
1. lawmakers are effectively co-workers, and such sharp words about coworkers would generally be punished in some way in most workplaces. There's a reason members of Congress are not allowed to do this sort of thing to their colleagues - it can be destructive to the doing of business if it is permitted without limit. This is not something that is universally held against one side or faction or a universal shield for the other.
2. lawmakers, since they represent constituents, have to balance this, where there is conflicts, with acting on behalf of their constituents, however they see that as being done best. This is, after all, representative democracy.
3. there is a huge clash here between the youngs overall and olds overall on this, though I would argue young conservatives are likely, if anything, generally more hardline on this than their older counterparts. In any case, Zooey Zephyr certainly has a very interesting life backstory.

I personally think Marjorie Taylor Greene is a bigot, demagogue, and a trashy woman overall. But if I was elected to Congress, I would not be allowed to use such words about her on the House floor, and the same would be true in reverse. I would be forced to use weasel words. Perhaps I could put that in a Tweet, but I could certainly not use that in a speech from a podium on the House floor.

Believe it or not, absolute freedom to say whatever you want about any of your colleagues as a member of a legislative body, on the floor of said legislative body, is a right that does not exist. And if it did, then all sense of cohesion and unity in the body could go to die.

Saying that voting for a bill that bans trans kids from potentially life saving care would mean having blood on your hands is not particularly extreme when it comes to this sort of issue.

 Except life saving care isn't what is being discussed.

You don't get to determine that. If a particular issue can effect a person's mental state enough for them to want to do harm to themselves then whatever care that could reasonably help deter that would be life saving. If a transgender person is having a breakdown over not being able to transition then access to care to transition is life saving. No one is saying that not being able to transition by itself will physically kill someone, but not being able to do so can cause mental anguish that could lead to suicide.

In the medical field, life saving care has an actual meaning. And not a single thing that falls under "gender affirming care" also falls under what is actually life saving care.

[HillGoose]

that is very uncool of them, someone needs to remind the Montana legislature that it costs nothing to be kind !

[DrScholl]

A violation of norms would be making an accusation without evidence, not saying that passing particular legislation could make you responsible for the repercussions.

Several things going on here.
1. lawmakers are effectively co-workers, and such sharp words about coworkers would generally be punished in some way in most workplaces. There's a reason members of Congress are not allowed to do this sort of thing to their colleagues - it can be destructive to the doing of business if it is permitted without limit. This is not something that is universally held against one side or faction or a universal shield for the other.
2. lawmakers, since they represent constituents, have to balance this, where there is conflicts, with acting on behalf of their constituents, however they see that as being done best. This is, after all, representative democracy.
3. there is a huge clash here between the youngs overall and olds overall on this, though I would argue young conservatives are likely, if anything, generally more hardline on this than their older counterparts. In any case, Zooey Zephyr certainly has a very interesting life backstory.

I personally think Marjorie Taylor Greene is a bigot, demagogue, and a trashy woman overall. But if I was elected to Congress, I would not be allowed to use such words about her on the House floor, and the same would be true in reverse. I would be forced to use weasel words. Perhaps I could put that in a Tweet, but I could certainly not use that in a speech from a podium on the House floor.

Believe it or not, absolute freedom to say whatever you want about any of your colleagues as a member of a legislative body, on the floor of said legislative body, is a right that does not exist. And if it did, then all sense of cohesion and unity in the body could go to die.

Saying that voting for a bill that bans trans kids from potentially life saving care would mean having blood on your hands is not particularly extreme when it comes to this sort of issue.

 Except life saving care isn't what is being discussed.

You don't get to determine that. If a particular issue can effect a person's mental state enough for them to want to do harm to themselves then whatever care that could reasonably help deter that would be life saving. If a transgender person is having a breakdown over not being able to transition then access to care to transition is life saving. No one is saying that not being able to transition by itself will physically kill someone, but not being able to do so can cause mental anguish that could lead to suicide.

In the medical field, life saving care has an actual meaning. And not a single thing that falls under "gender affirming care" also falls under what is actually life saving care.

Wow, you're a doctor, I didn't know that. Neither am I, but I'm smart enough to know that gender affirming care can be life saving. Not every transgender person is going to be suicidal, but some will be. If you don't understand that then you shouldn't be a doctor.

[fhtagn]

A violation of norms would be making an accusation without evidence, not saying that passing particular legislation could make you responsible for the repercussions.

Several things going on here.
1. lawmakers are effectively co-workers, and such sharp words about coworkers would generally be punished in some way in most workplaces. There's a reason members of Congress are not allowed to do this sort of thing to their colleagues - it can be destructive to the doing of business if it is permitted without limit. This is not something that is universally held against one side or faction or a universal shield for the other.
2. lawmakers, since they represent constituents, have to balance this, where there is conflicts, with acting on behalf of their constituents, however they see that as being done best. This is, after all, representative democracy.
3. there is a huge clash here between the youngs overall and olds overall on this, though I would argue young conservatives are likely, if anything, generally more hardline on this than their older counterparts. In any case, Zooey Zephyr certainly has a very interesting life backstory.

I personally think Marjorie Taylor Greene is a bigot, demagogue, and a trashy woman overall. But if I was elected to Congress, I would not be allowed to use such words about her on the House floor, and the same would be true in reverse. I would be forced to use weasel words. Perhaps I could put that in a Tweet, but I could certainly not use that in a speech from a podium on the House floor.

Believe it or not, absolute freedom to say whatever you want about any of your colleagues as a member of a legislative body, on the floor of said legislative body, is a right that does not exist. And if it did, then all sense of cohesion and unity in the body could go to die.

Saying that voting for a bill that bans trans kids from potentially life saving care would mean having blood on your hands is not particularly extreme when it comes to this sort of issue.

 Except life saving care isn't what is being discussed.

You don't get to determine that. If a particular issue can effect a person's mental state enough for them to want to do harm to themselves then whatever care that could reasonably help deter that would be life saving. If a transgender person is having a breakdown over not being able to transition then access to care to transition is life saving. No one is saying that not being able to transition by itself will physically kill someone, but not being able to do so can cause mental anguish that could lead to suicide.

In the medical field, life saving care has an actual meaning. And not a single thing that falls under "gender affirming care" also falls under what is actually life saving care.

Wow, you're a doctor, I didn't know that. Neither am I, but I'm smart enough to know that gender affirming care can be life saving. Not every transgender person is going to be suicidal, but some will be. If you don't understand that then you shouldn't be a doctor.

Once again, not how actual life saving care works. But at least you admit you have no clue what you're talking about.

[DrScholl]

A violation of norms would be making an accusation without evidence, not saying that passing particular legislation could make you responsible for the repercussions.

Several things going on here.
1. lawmakers are effectively co-workers, and such sharp words about coworkers would generally be punished in some way in most workplaces. There's a reason members of Congress are not allowed to do this sort of thing to their colleagues - it can be destructive to the doing of business if it is permitted without limit. This is not something that is universally held against one side or faction or a universal shield for the other.
2. lawmakers, since they represent constituents, have to balance this, where there is conflicts, with acting on behalf of their constituents, however they see that as being done best. This is, after all, representative democracy.
3. there is a huge clash here between the youngs overall and olds overall on this, though I would argue young conservatives are likely, if anything, generally more hardline on this than their older counterparts. In any case, Zooey Zephyr certainly has a very interesting life backstory.

I personally think Marjorie Taylor Greene is a bigot, demagogue, and a trashy woman overall. But if I was elected to Congress, I would not be allowed to use such words about her on the House floor, and the same would be true in reverse. I would be forced to use weasel words. Perhaps I could put that in a Tweet, but I could certainly not use that in a speech from a podium on the House floor.

Believe it or not, absolute freedom to say whatever you want about any of your colleagues as a member of a legislative body, on the floor of said legislative body, is a right that does not exist. And if it did, then all sense of cohesion and unity in the body could go to die.

Saying that voting for a bill that bans trans kids from potentially life saving care would mean having blood on your hands is not particularly extreme when it comes to this sort of issue.

 Except life saving care isn't what is being discussed.

You don't get to determine that. If a particular issue can effect a person's mental state enough for them to want to do harm to themselves then whatever care that could reasonably help deter that would be life saving. If a transgender person is having a breakdown over not being able to transition then access to care to transition is life saving. No one is saying that not being able to transition by itself will physically kill someone, but not being able to do so can cause mental anguish that could lead to suicide.

In the medical field, life saving care has an actual meaning. And not a single thing that falls under "gender affirming care" also falls under what is actually life saving care.

Wow, you're a doctor, I didn't know that. Neither am I, but I'm smart enough to know that gender affirming care can be life saving. Not every transgender person is going to be suicidal, but some will be. If you don't understand that then you shouldn't be a doctor.

Once again, not how actual life saving care works. But at least you admit you have no clue what you're talking about.

As a doctor you should know that saving lives isn't all about curing diseases or illnesses or life saving surgery. Gender affirming care is life saving for many transgender individuals, period. That's not something that you can speak on because that's not your experience and you refuse to be understanding of other's experiences. I'm not transgender, but I have read about how transgender people are affected.

[fhtagn]

A violation of norms would be making an accusation without evidence, not saying that passing particular legislation could make you responsible for the repercussions.

Several things going on here.
1. lawmakers are effectively co-workers, and such sharp words about coworkers would generally be punished in some way in most workplaces. There's a reason members of Congress are not allowed to do this sort of thing to their colleagues - it can be destructive to the doing of business if it is permitted without limit. This is not something that is universally held against one side or faction or a universal shield for the other.
2. lawmakers, since they represent constituents, have to balance this, where there is conflicts, with acting on behalf of their constituents, however they see that as being done best. This is, after all, representative democracy.
3. there is a huge clash here between the youngs overall and olds overall on this, though I would argue young conservatives are likely, if anything, generally more hardline on this than their older counterparts. In any case, Zooey Zephyr certainly has a very interesting life backstory.

I personally think Marjorie Taylor Greene is a bigot, demagogue, and a trashy woman overall. But if I was elected to Congress, I would not be allowed to use such words about her on the House floor, and the same would be true in reverse. I would be forced to use weasel words. Perhaps I could put that in a Tweet, but I could certainly not use that in a speech from a podium on the House floor.

Believe it or not, absolute freedom to say whatever you want about any of your colleagues as a member of a legislative body, on the floor of said legislative body, is a right that does not exist. And if it did, then all sense of cohesion and unity in the body could go to die.

Saying that voting for a bill that bans trans kids from potentially life saving care would mean having blood on your hands is not particularly extreme when it comes to this sort of issue.

 Except life saving care isn't what is being discussed.

You don't get to determine that. If a particular issue can effect a person's mental state enough for them to want to do harm to themselves then whatever care that could reasonably help deter that would be life saving. If a transgender person is having a breakdown over not being able to transition then access to care to transition is life saving. No one is saying that not being able to transition by itself will physically kill someone, but not being able to do so can cause mental anguish that could lead to suicide.

In the medical field, life saving care has an actual meaning. And not a single thing that falls under "gender affirming care" also falls under what is actually life saving care.

Wow, you're a doctor, I didn't know that. Neither am I, but I'm smart enough to know that gender affirming care can be life saving. Not every transgender person is going to be suicidal, but some will be. If you don't understand that then you shouldn't be a doctor.

Once again, not how actual life saving care works. But at least you admit you have no clue what you're talking about.

As a doctor you should know that saving lives isn't all about curing diseases or illnesses or life saving surgery. Gender affirming care is life saving for many transgender individuals, period. That's not something that you can speak on because that's not your experience and you refuse to be understanding of other's experiences. I'm not transgender, but I have read about how transgender people are affected.

There is no scenario in which purely elective treatments that a patient will still very easily live without obtaining could be considered life saving care. Not being able to get, or delaying when someone is able to get puberty blockers/hormones/top or bottom surgeries isn't going to kill anyone. If someone were to commit suicide for those reasons, it's not the lack of medical care that killed them.

[DrScholl]

There is no scenario in which purely elective treatments that a patient will still very easily live without obtaining could be considered life saving care. Not being able to get, or delaying when someone is able to get puberty blockers/hormones/top or bottom surgeries isn't going to kill anyone. If someone were to commit suicide for those reasons, it's not the lack of medical care that killed them.

You are completely putting your own spin on what I said because none of this is what I said. I've very clearly stated my point but you have ignored it just for the sake for arguing. No one ever said that the lack of hormones or surgery alone was going to kill anyone and you know that I didn't say that. My point is that being able to have access to care that can improve a person's well being can be life saving from a mental health standpoint. And I even stated that not all transgender people are suicidal. You are using a strawman argument at this point. Depression and anxiety can't directly kill you either, but that doesn't mean care can't save lives.

The bottom line is that transgender people being allowed care does nothing to harm you so your indignation is pointless.

[Ferguson97]

There is no scenario in which purely elective treatments that a patient will still very easily live without obtaining could be considered life saving care. Not being able to get, or delaying when someone is able to get puberty blockers/hormones/top or bottom surgeries isn't going to kill anyone. If someone were to commit suicide for those reasons, it's not the lack of medical care that killed them.

So you wouldn't call anti-depressants life-saving medication?

[fhtagn]

There is no scenario in which purely elective treatments that a patient will still very easily live without obtaining could be considered life saving care. Not being able to get, or delaying when someone is able to get puberty blockers/hormones/top or bottom surgeries isn't going to kill anyone. If someone were to commit suicide for those reasons, it's not the lack of medical care that killed them.

So you wouldn't call anti-depressants life-saving medication?

No, and by definition, they aren't.

[fhtagn]

There is no scenario in which purely elective treatments that a patient will still very easily live without obtaining could be considered life saving care. Not being able to get, or delaying when someone is able to get puberty blockers/hormones/top or bottom surgeries isn't going to kill anyone. If someone were to commit suicide for those reasons, it's not the lack of medical care that killed them.

You are completely putting your own spin on what I said because none of this is what I said. I've very clearly stated my point but you have ignored it just for the sake for arguing. No one ever said that the lack of hormones or surgery alone was going to kill anyone and you know that I didn't say that. My point is that being able to have access to care that can improve a person's well being can be life saving from a mental health standpoint. And I even stated that not all transgender people are suicidal. You are using a strawman argument at this point. Depression and anxiety can't directly kill you either, but that doesn't mean care can't save lives.

The bottom line is that transgender people being allowed care does nothing to harm you so your indignation is pointless.

None of those things fall under the category of "life saving care" no matter how much you want to pretend it does.

[Ferguson97]

There is no scenario in which purely elective treatments that a patient will still very easily live without obtaining could be considered life saving care. Not being able to get, or delaying when someone is able to get puberty blockers/hormones/top or bottom surgeries isn't going to kill anyone. If someone were to commit suicide for those reasons, it's not the lack of medical care that killed them.

So you wouldn't call anti-depressants life-saving medication?

No, and by definition, they aren't.

This is needless pedantry.

[fhtagn]

There is no scenario in which purely elective treatments that a patient will still very easily live without obtaining could be considered life saving care. Not being able to get, or delaying when someone is able to get puberty blockers/hormones/top or bottom surgeries isn't going to kill anyone. If someone were to commit suicide for those reasons, it's not the lack of medical care that killed them.

So you wouldn't call anti-depressants life-saving medication?

No, and by definition, they aren't.

This is needless pedantry.

I'm simply stating a fact. Sorry the truth bothers you.