GOP lawmakers in three states want to ban trans health care for minors

Hmmmmm... the title is misleading, because no one is suggesting a ban on health care for these kids, but only on medical and/or surgical gender affirming medical intervention for these kids. Nevertheless, it seems some cautious optimism may be in order here:

GOP lawmakers in three states want to ban trans health care for minors

The proposals come on the heels of a controversy in Texas spawned by a custody battle between parents who disagree on whether their child is transgender.

I stress "cautious" optimism because no bills have yet been written, and the devil is always in the details! But the general idea seems to be to prohibit any life-altering medical procedures, from puberty blockers and cross-hormones to sex reassignment surgery. Social transition would not be prohibited. So things like changing names, clothing, pronouns, etc., would not be prohibited.

Republican Texas Rep. Matt Krause said he would introduce a bill that “prohibits the use of puberty blockers in these situations for children under 18” in the next legislative session. Kentucky Rep. Savannah Maddox, also a Republican, announced on Facebook that she was drafting a similar bill for her state. She referenced the Texas custody case in her announcement.

“I am a strong advocate for parents' rights — but it is not the right of a parent to permanently alter a child's gender or identity, even when based upon certain behaviors or the perceptions of a child's mind which has not yet had time to fully develop,” Maddox wrote, in part.

Ginny Ehrhart, a Republican member of the George House of Representatives, said the Texas case is one reason why she plans to introduce the “Vulnerable Child Protection Act” in Georgia’s 2020 legislative session. A statement announcing the forthcoming bill said it would “make it a felony to perform radical surgery on, or administer drugs to, a minor child for the purpose of attempting to change a minor’s gender,” which Ehrhart called “a form of child abuse."

The main rebuttal/objection that I've seen is that surgery is "rarely" or "never" done on children. The "never" is false. Surgeries are being done:

U.S. Doctors Are Performing Double Mastectomies On Healthy 13-Year-Old Girls

Thirty-three of these girls were under 18 at the time of surgeries a taxpayer-funded researcher is studying to validate transgenderism. Two were only 13 years old, and five were only 14.

The truth is, I doubt anyone knows just how many surgeries have been performed on underage kids. I'm pretty sure no one's keeping track because no one wants to keep track because no one wants the truth known. At least not the ones who would know...

What we do know is that the current "gender affirming" treatments being pushed on kids include dangerous drugs that have never been tested and therefore never approved by the FDA for these purposes, with known and unknown risks and adverse outcomes, which include both short-term and long term negative effects, some permanent. From cognitive function to bone density to sterility/infertility.

The use of cross-sex hormones is also risky, with its own known and unknown risks and adverse outcomes, both short-term and long-term.

In fact, the physical conditions induced by both the puberty blockers and the cross-sex hormones are considered medical conditions requiring medical treatment when they occur organically!

And in the meantime, many -- if not the vast majority -- of these kids are suffering from other related and very relevant mental and emotional issues that are being under-diagnosed and under-treated in favor of "gender affirmation." It's not working, and the increasing number of desisters and detransitioners is proof of that:

'Hundreds' of young trans people seeking help to return to original sex

This must stop. But until the actual bills are written and we see the specifics, I will only be cautiously optimistic, although I strongly support the necessary and proper legislation necessary to protect our kids. I will remain cautious simply because history tells us that critters have a tendency to write bad legislation to address real problems. The "crap slammich" as I call it... the left puts its crap on one side, the right puts their crap on the other side, then they slap it together and shove it down our throats: The Crap Slammich.

I am glad to see it happening now though... in the run up to the general elections. I want the Trans Rights agenda to be front and center, and I want both the left and the right put on the spot. But especially the Democrats who are pissing off a HUGE portion of its base -- especially parents, many feminists, many lesbians, and (predominantly gay) transsexuals.

Some more information and food for thought:

Top Texas Republicans order investigation into mother who supports child’s gender transition

A bitter child custody dispute became a flashpoint in the state’s culture wars this week as Gov. Greg Abbott and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton urged state involvement.

Rep. Ginny Ehrhart Announces Vulnerable Child Protection Act

Georgia Lawmaker Proposes Bill Making It Illegal to Medically Change a Child's Gender, Though Some Experts Say That Doesn't Happen

Republican politician is trying to make it illegal for trans kids to receive medical care (Kentucky)

Lawyers zone in on transgender drug therapy (pdf)

The Detransitioners: They Were Transgender, Until They Weren't

Chest Reconstruction and Chest Dysphoria in Transmasculine Minors and Young Adults

Comparisons of Nonsurgical and Postsurgical Cohorts

I wouldn't be surprised if some of these kids grow up and murder their parents. I know if my parents did that crap to me, they would pay dearly later in life.

a reply to: Boadicea

I’m not in favor of government at any level deciding who deserves healthcare and who doesn’t for any reason.

That is a matter between individuals and their medical providers.

On a side note, it seems appropriate to me that any such legislation should also consider other medical interventions with no medical necessity. Should we allow teenage boys to get vasectomies? Or teenage girls tubal ligations? Or maybe a complete hysterectomy if doesn't want to be bothered with a period either? Should teenage girls be allowed to get breast implants? Should boys or girls be allowed to get nose jobs? How about parents who circumcise their sons? Pierced ears and whatnot?

Where should the lines be drawn? What should be the deciding principles? Should any such legislation address any and all medical treatments for non-medical reasons?

a reply to: Boadicea

Very good OP and I'm very glad to see some people are beginning to see sense in this trans issue as the never did right when this all started.

It's very wrong what has been happening to children of late and totally agree with the lawmakers on this one. I'm not a resident of the US but hope this will make those over here in the UK change their minds on what they've been doing recently.

Lets hope the support for all this tran BS quickly diminishes

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Boadicea

I’m not in favor of government at any level deciding who deserves healthcare and who doesn’t for any reason.

That is a matter between individuals and their medical providers.

When it comes to adults, I completely agree.

And in the case of adults, I do think that they are being grossly under-informed (and likely mis-informed to one extent or another) by the professionals and experts, and I would definitely like that addressed as well. But it is still their choice.

But not with kids, and not when the adverse effects are so serious, and permanent, and especially not with the seeming regulatory capture that has replaced best medical practice and evidence with an ideology.

Having said all this, the free will and autonomy of adults must be front and center in this debate -- always. Including and especially our medical and bodily autonomy.

originally posted by: Boadicea
On a side note, it seems appropriate to me that any such legislation should also consider other medical interventions with no medical necessity. Should we allow teenage boys to get vasectomies? Or teenage girls tubal ligations? Or maybe a complete hysterectomy if doesn't want to be bothered with a period either? Should teenage girls be allowed to get breast implants? Should boys or girls be allowed to get nose jobs? How about parents who circumcise their sons? Pierced ears and whatnot?

Where should the lines be drawn? What should be the deciding principles? Should any such legislation address any and all medical treatments for non-medical reasons?

How much power do you want to surrender to the Government Bo???

Jesus.

This is overdue. I am hopeful that in the future people will see this for the child abuse it is and it will be unthinkable to inflict this pain on a child. We should be giving these children psychological care not paying to maim and destroy their health.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Boadicea

I’m not in favor of government at any level deciding who deserves healthcare and who doesn’t for any reason.

That is a matter between individuals and their medical providers.

Maybe the compromise could be passing a measure that allows adults who feel like they shouldn't have gotten treatment as a child to go after the physician who performed/prescribed surgeries and or "treatments" when they were children and didn't get a say.

Doctors would really think twice before exploring such options with the dramatic mom who looks to have pageant syndrome trying to live vicariously through her child.

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad
I wouldn't be surprised if some of these kids grow up and murder their parents.

I certainly hope not!!!

But your point is well taken, and I do expect to see more and more lawsuits. Hopefully not against most parents though, who are only doing what they've been told is "best," or forced to do by courts and other authorities.

Unfortunately, there is no way to hold accountable the elected officials and other persons in positions of trust who are allowing and enabling this abuse. They are a clear and present danger to these kids.

a reply to: Boadicea

Good. And anyone who actually cares about the health of those kids, along with the risks that come with mutilating yourself, will be on board with this.

I don't want to be made to pay for someone's sex-change operation anymore than I want to pay for someone's face-lift, tummy-tuck or butt cheek implants.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Then you don't care about the risks that come with making such decisions for minors who may likely change their mind when they mature. And don't try to say you do, because you don't.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

I know of nothing that prevents filing civil cases for malpractice by trans folks.

The parents have very limited control in the treatment process in the real world. In my opinion, your “dramatic mom” claim is basically a trope.

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: Gryphon66

Then you don't care about the risks that come with making such decisions for minors who may likely change their mind when they mature. And don't try to say you do, because you don't.

That’s your opinion certainly. Your claim that anyone is “making decisions for minors” is fairly ludicrously ironic.

Parents make decisions for minors everyday. In the case of transitioning ... the parents have little control as I noted previously. Would you like to have a factual discussion, or do you want to continue your mind-reading act?

originally posted by: IAMTAT
I don't want to be made to pay for someone's sex-change operation anymore than I want to pay for someone's face-lift, tummy-tuck or butt cheek implants.

How are you paying for someone’s treatments again?

a reply to: Boadicea

If the parents aren't intelligent enough or possess enough common sense to see the danger in this then they deserve to be hated.

a reply to: Gryphon66

The parents have very limited control in the treatment process in the real world. In my opinion, your “dramatic mom” claim is basically a trope.

It wasn't an attempt to trope. I don't know what the scale or scope this is truly being practiced in. I've only heard a few stories here and there.

But I do find it concerning it's a growing trend, and kids aren't the ones making decisions that can effect them for the rest of their life... Or they don't have the mental and emotional maturity to be part of the decision making process.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: Gryphon66

Then you don't care about the risks that come with making such decisions for minors who may likely change their mind when they mature. And don't try to say you do, because you don't.

That’s your opinion certainly. Your claim that anyone is “making decisions for minors” is fairly ludicrously ironic.

Parents make decisions for minors everyday. In the case of transitioning ... the parents have little control as I noted previously. Would you like to have a factual discussion, or do you want to continue your mind-reading act?

I prefer my mind-reading act.

If one of my kids came up to me and told me he wanted to be a girl, I'd smack him in the back of the head and tell him to get some sense. You know, the same thing that our parents would have done if we posed the same question when we were kids. I would've gotten smacked in the back of the head for coming home with a pierced ear. Smacking your kid back into reality goes a long way.

Spare the rod, spoil the child. Look around you and you'll see how many parents spared the rod. Look not just at the subject of this thread, but look how kids disrespect law officers, adults, people that don't think like them. I would have been slapped silly in the 80's and 90's if I disrespected people like that.

a reply to: Gryphon66

How much power do you want to surrender to the Government Bo???

Jesus.

That's exactly what I'm asking myself... and asking you and everyone. Where do we draw the lines? What is a reasonable risk for a reasonable precaution and what is going to far?

I've already drawn one line at children vs adults. So I'm basically asking regarding children here. And there are extremes and there are gray areas.

For example, pierced ears... in theory, while technically invasive, and infections are possible, there is no real threat to life or limb, no long-term adverse outcomes, and is reversible (don't wear earrings and it will eventually close and heal itself.)

At the other extreme, what about letting a child choose euthanasia for himself? Is that reasonable?

Spouting our opinions on an open discussion forum is one thing, but when we start talking laws and legislation and regulation, and the precedents which will be established, including both intended and unintended consequences, as well as desirable and undesirable consequences, all of this has to be considered. The general principles are just as important in the decision-making process as the ideal outcome.