Trans Youth Speaks Out As Alabama Debates Banning Medical Treatment

[Vas Deferens]

(03-29-2021, 11:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: There's been some very rational and informed posts about this subject in this thread that don't quite fit this narrative.  I'm honestly disappointed that you chose to ignore them completely and go with this highly partisan take on this subject.  Not that you care, but still.

I think he was talking about about GOP representatives in many states going after a minority population of children when there are more pressing matters at hand.

[BmorePat87]

(03-29-2021, 11:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: There's been some very rational and informed posts about this subject in this thread that don't quite fit this narrative.  I'm honestly disappointed that you chose to ignore them completely and go with this highly partisan take on this subject.  Not that you care, but still.

You are right that I don’t care. Half of Congress thinks my dad’s employer should be able to fire her for being trans in the name of religious freedom. An increasing number of states want to make trans students, arguably the most at risk kids, a more marginalized group.

When the humanity of people I care about is up for debate, I don’t really care to hear people rationalize rhetoric that only serves to further stigmatize those loved ones.

Transphobia has been openly tolerated here for years. Anyone who has an issue with me not giving a shit about the opinion of small minded bigots can **** off.

[BmorePat87]

(03-30-2021, 12:27 AM)Vas Deferens Wrote: I think he was talking about about GOP representatives in many states going after a minority population of children when there are more pressing matters at hand.

That and these sacks of shit in Alabama.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-30-2021, 12:27 AM)Vas Deferens Wrote: I think he was talking about about GOP representatives in many states going after a minority population of children when there are more pressing matters at hand.

Understandable, but that needs to be stated.

(03-30-2021, 12:56 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: You are right that I don’t care. Half of Congress thinks my dad’s employer should be able to fire her for being trans in the name of religious freedom. An increasing number of states want to make trans students, arguably the most at risk kids, a more marginalized group.

Which would be wrong.  It would also not be in line with the actual subject of this thread.

Quote:When the humanity of people I care about is up for debate, I don’t really care to hear people rationalize rhetoric that only serves to further stigmatize those loved ones.

Believe me, I can completely relate.  In the Asian hate crime thread I related that I have friends who have been directly affected.  Unfortunately, no one in that thread afforded me any special insight or consideration due to this.

Quote:Transphobia has been openly tolerated here for years. Anyone who has an issue with me not giving a shit about the opinion of small minded bigots can **** off.

While I can completely understand this position I don't think this statement can be applied, in any reasonable degree, to the posts made by myself or Beaker.  Both of which I think address this issue in a considered and rational fashion.

(03-30-2021, 12:59 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: That and these sacks of shit in Alabama.

Again, an understandable response.  However, neither myself or Beaker are posting from there or supporting that position.

[treee]

From my understanding, hormone blockers can be used to delay puberty with minimal impact to the general health of any given individual. I'm dont know the entirety of the impacts of allowing youths who think they may be transgendered to take hormone blockers until they are a bit older at which point they can make the decision to either fully transition or to stop taking the blockers and allow hormones of their birth sex to begin taking hold; I imagine it would be better than not doing anything at all.

[GMDino]

(03-30-2021, 01:38 AM)treee Wrote: From my understanding, hormone blockers can be used to delay puberty with minimal impact to the general health of any given individual. I'm dont know the entirety of the impacts of allowing youths who think they may be transgendered to take hormone blockers until they are a bit older at which point they can make the decision to either fully transition or to stop taking the blockers and allow hormones of their birth sex to begin taking hold; I imagine it would be better than not doing anything at all.

I can't say with 100% certainty so I'm sure someone will be along to tell me I'm wrong, but I remember stories of parents using such blockers on their children athletes when they were involved in gymnastics.  Too keep the girls small to help their chances of advancing in competition such as the Olympics.  I'd say that is MORE wrong than a parent helping their child feel what is normal to them.  But I don't think the state is blocking that.

I think it is obvious that I feel these decisions should be made by the individual, and in most cases with the parents guidance if they are a minor.  Plus counseling along the way.  Not the state.  And not you (universal) or me.

[fredtoast]

(03-29-2021, 02:18 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: I'm not saying it is the Governments job to tell parents how to raise their kids. 

That is exactly what this law is doing.  

So do you support it or not?

[fredtoast]

(03-29-2021, 11:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: There's been some very rational and informed posts about this subject in this thread that don't quite fit this narrative.  I'm honestly disappointed that you chose to ignore them completely and go with this highly partisan take on this subject.  Not that you care, but still.

So you support this law?

You think the government should have the power to make medical decisions for these people?

Seems like some people want to work around the edges without committing to what they really support.  Guess it is hard to come out against "freedom" when you have claimed to be a champion of individual rights in other threads.

[BmorePat87]

(03-30-2021, 01:13 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Understandable, but that needs to be stated.


Which would be wrong.  It would also not be in line with the actual subject of this thread.



Believe me, I can completely relate.  In the Asian hate crime thread I related that I have friends who have been directly affected.  Unfortunately, no one in that thread afforded me any special insight or consideration due to this.


While I can completely understand this position I don't think this statement can be applied, in any reasonable degree, to the posts made by myself or Beaker.  Both of which I think address this issue in a considered and rational fashion.


Again, an understandable response.  However, neither myself or Beaker are posting from there or supporting that position.

I responded to the topic of the thread, not the responses made by anyone in it. 

However, if you want me to I will address your post. I think jumping into a discussion centered around what medical decisions a family can make by reframing it as only a question of minors making unilateral medical decisions and then comparing it to holding them criminal responsible is a really bizarre argument. The comparison is irrelevant to the conversation and only serves to distract from the issue by creating a false premise that needs to be answered. 

You used a slippery slope argument, acknowledging the benefits of hormone therapy for teens before then focusing on extreme examples of teens trying to unilaterally make the decision or being peer pressured into being trans.

We're talking about a bill that would make it a felony to treat a teen with hormone therapy after the teen, their parent, their therapist, and their doctor decided it was appropriate. In reality, that's who is involved in this process. The bill would also require teachers to out trans kids to their parents, which would only serve to cause more harm to the child. 

The author of the bill admitted that he had never once spoken to a trans kid in his entire life. He didn't even know if hormone therapy was occurring for juveniles in Alabama. He just decided this was something he wanted to outlaw. As I said, the purpose of this law is to hurt trans people, not help them. 

Moving aware from the absolute harm of the the bill at its surface by presenting these rare what-if scenarios seemingly as a justification for it, is harmful rhetoric. It contributes to the narrative that trans juveniles lack agency, that they are incapable of knowing themselves, and that their feelings are transient.

It also is better addressed through completely separate policy. There's a huge difference between "make it a felony and compel teachers to out students" and "ensure that the decision is made with consultation of a therapist and doctor". One method treats trans kids as subhuman. One respects their humanity. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-30-2021, 11:07 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I responded to the topic of the thread, not the responses made by anyone in it.

I see. 

Quote:However, if you want me to I will address your post. I think jumping into a discussion centered around what medical decisions a family can make by reframing it as only a question of minors making unilateral medical decisions and then comparing it to holding them criminal responsible is a really bizarre argument. The comparison is irrelevant to the conversation and only serves to distract from the issue by creating a false premise that needs to be answered. 

Well, much like my assumption about your post, you are making one about mine.  I took the opportunity to voice my opinion on the issue as a whole, not just the Alabama law.

Quote:You used a slippery slope argument, acknowledging the benefits of hormone therapy for teens before then focusing on extreme examples of teens trying to unilaterally make the decision or being peer pressured into being trans.

Yeah.  Aside from your mischaracterization of my second point.  This isn't a black and white issue and I think acknowledging that is important.

Quote:We're talking about a bill that would make it a felony to treat a teen with hormone therapy after the teen, their parent, their therapist, and their doctor decided it was appropriate. In reality, that's who is involved in this process. The bill would also require teachers to out trans kids to their parents, which would only serve to cause more harm to the child. 

I haven't seen a single person in this thread support this bill.  If what you're saying is that voicing legitimate concerns about this issue is analogous to supporting this extreme law then I don't know what to tell you.

Quote:The author of the bill admitted that he had never once spoken to a trans kid in his entire life. He didn't even know if hormone therapy was occurring for juveniles in Alabama. He just decided this was something he wanted to outlaw. As I said, the purpose of this law is to hurt trans people, not help them. 

Moving aware from the absolute harm of the the bill at its surface by presenting these rare what-if scenarios seemingly as a justification for it, is harmful rhetoric. It contributes to the narrative that trans juveniles lack agency, that they are incapable of knowing themselves, and that their feelings are transient.

Here's where I think you're a little to close to this issue.  I don't see having legitimate concerns about this issue as anything close to supporting this type of law.  It's almost like you're using your "slippery slope" argument, which you were against above, to label any discussion on the issue at all.

Quote:It also is better addressed through completely separate policy. There's a huge difference between "make it a felony and compel teachers to out students" and "ensure that the decision is made with consultation of a therapist and doctor". One method treats trans kids as subhuman. One respects their humanity. 

I completely agree, but no one in this thread has said anything close to supportive of this bill.

[Mickeypoo]

(03-29-2021, 10:46 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Republicans are going all in on transphobia being their new border wall for 2024. Obviously they don't actually care about trans kids, they see them as subhuman. The rhetoric they spew will only encourage more stigmatization and discrimination of these kids, causing more violence against them and self harm, accomplishing the opposite of the name of the bill but achieving their personal goal of doing more harm to trans people.

That's quite the statement and painting a large number of people with a broad brush.

[Mickeypoo]

(03-30-2021, 12:59 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: That and these sacks of shit in Alabama.

There are lots of sacks of shit to go around and not just on the right, but it is hard to tell in this place.

[Mickeypoo]

(03-30-2021, 09:51 AM)fredtoast Wrote: That is exactly what this law is doing.  

So do you support it or not?

I don't believe a minor (under 18) should be allowed to have any forever life altering thing done unless it is life and death and/or needed medical treatment.  Your brain is not fully developed until 25, so why rush something not medically necessary and forever life changing?

[BmorePat87]

(03-30-2021, 11:51 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I see. 



Well, much like my assumption about your post, you are making one about mine.  I took the opportunity to voice my opinion on the issue as a whole, not just the Alabama law.



Yeah.  Aside from your mischaracterization of my second point.  This isn't a black and white issue and I think acknowledging that is important.



I haven't seen a single person in this thread support this bill.  If what you're saying is that voicing legitimate concerns about this issue is analogous to supporting this extreme law then I don't know what to tell you.



Here's where I think you're a little to close to this issue.  I don't see having legitimate concerns about this issue as anything close to supporting this type of law.  It's almost like you're using your "slippery slope" argument, which you were against above, to label any discussion on the issue at all.


I completely agree, but no one in this thread has said anything close to supportive of this bill.

It's really on you if people see your attempt to pivot away from the topic as implicit support for the topic after you take a comment directed at the topic to be a criticism of your post. 

[BmorePat87]

(03-30-2021, 01:01 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: That's quite the statement and painting a large number of people with a broad brush.

(03-30-2021, 01:05 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: There are lots of sacks of shit to go around and not just on the right, but it is hard to tell in this place.

98% of House Republicans rejected a law that would extend basic anti-discrimination protections to people on the basis of their sexual orientation and gender identity. 

My apologies to the 2%. 

[fredtoast]

(03-30-2021, 01:16 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote:  Your brain is not fully developed until 25, so why rush something not medically necessary and forever life changing?

What about a physical deformity that is not life threatening?  Age 25 to decide if the surgery is worth the risk?

What about getting married or risking one's life in the military?  Age 25 for those decisions also?

And what about the parents rights to get medical treatment fro their own child.  Should the government have the right to take that decision away from them?

[Mickeypoo]

(03-30-2021, 01:30 PM)fredtoast Wrote: What about a physical deformity that is not life threatening?  Age 25 to decide if the surgery is worth the risk?

What about getting married or risking one's life in the military?  Age 25 for those decisions also?

And what about the parents rights to get medical treatment fro their own child.  Should the government have the right to take that decision away from them?

I said life threatening or needed medical treatment.

I do not agree with the government telling parents what to do.

You're seriously comparing getting married and military service to adolescent transgenderism?  

[Mickeypoo]

(03-30-2021, 01:30 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: 98% of House Republicans rejected a law that would extend basic anti-discrimination protections to people on the basis of their sexual orientation and gender identity. 

My apologies to the 2%. 

Somehow I have a feeling that that is not the whole picture.

[GMDino]

(03-30-2021, 02:13 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: Somehow I have a feeling that that is not the whole picture.

What do you "feel" is the whole picture?

[Mickeypoo]

(03-30-2021, 02:15 PM)GMDino Wrote: What do you "feel" is the whole picture?

Not that kind of feeling, but nice try anyway.