Multiple US States Introduce Legislation Targeted At Trans Minors

[MenimenLoop]

Article:

Eight state legislatures — including Missouri, Florida, Illinois, Oklahoma, Colorado, South Carolina, Kentucky, and South Dakota — have already introduced bills this year that would criminally punish doctors who follow best practices for treating adolescents with gender dysphoria. In South Dakota, for example, doctors who prescribe puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones could face a $2,000 fine and a year in prison under the proposed law. South Dakota’s version of the bill was even prioritized and became the first bill of the decade to pass out of committee. On Wednesday, it passed the House in a 46-23 vote.

Lawmakers in Texas, Utah, and Georgia have promised to introduce similar bills once their legislative sessions begin. And while a New Hampshire bill wouldn’t criminalize doctors, it would classify gender-affirming care for minors as child abuse.

In other words, should any of the bills become law, they would effectively cut off many adolescents from medically necessary and, often, lifesaving treatment for gender dysphoria. There are approximately 150,000 transgender youth between the ages of 13 and 17 in the United States, according to the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law, and studies show that kids in Gen Z identify as more queer and trans than previous generations. A 2018 study found that the risk of developing a mental health condition was three to 13 times higher for transgender and gender-diverse youth than for their cisgender peers.
Source: Why Republicans are suddenly in a rush to regulate every trans kid’s puberty

The bills introduced so far are as follows:

Note that the South Dakota bill has already passed the South Dakota House, as mentioned in the Vox article above, and is likely the "test case" so to speak.

Furthermore, the Kentucky bill would do the following in addition to making it a felony to prescribe puberty blockers or horomones to trans children under the age of 18: 1) give parents the right to block any treatment for gender dysphoria 2) mandate that all government employees, including teachers, must inform a trans minor's parents that their child is trans 3) guarentee the absolute right of all government employees to voice whatever opinion they have about trans people without consequence.

i think this is a good law that would prevent children from taking permanent medication that they would regret later, just wait for them to become adult first.

 

[Deleted member]

I believe government civil servants must provide equal access to government services without the slightest hint of expressing their own beliefs or opinions, so 3) is a serious can of worms. Civil Servants should never be allowed to voice their opinion about anything when on the job, so the precise wording matters a great deal.

 

[Doomsought]

Finally a push back at that mafia.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

Finally a push back at that mafia.

One of those politicians will find his traumatized transgenderized former-son in his bed as a “warning”

 

[prinCZess]

Eh, There's a justified use for these drugs and procedures a blanket ban doesn't serve well or properly. Even if you oppose under-18 transition, puberty-blockers are an item with a usage, and as I understand it trans individuals who don't go through their sexual puberty have much better/easier(?) transition processes--oversight by a psychologist/doctor(s) and parents seems like it'd do the job of balancing the interest of the child better than the state butting in and making an 'all [x] is illegal' decision on a debatable basis.

Government employees shouldn't really be voicing opinion about trans people in any manner while they're serving as employees, so I'd have to dig deeper into that one to even express a general sentiment. If it's some basic sop to free speech where it recognizes in resolution form that someone who works for the government shouldn't get fired because on their personal twitter they said something TERFy or what-have-you, then I can see it. Otherwise? Don't see it as particularly relevant or productive as a law.

 

[Battlegrinder]

Given even this article's own statements, I can understand the reasoning behind such laws, but it also seems as though they are badly written and overreaching. Per the linked article about Gen Z identifying as queer/trans more than previous generations:

A new study by trend forecasting agency J. Walter Thompson Innovation Group found that only 48 percent of 13-20-year-olds identify as "exclusively heterosexual," compared to 65 percent of millennials aged 21 to 34.

Vice reports:

On a scale of zero to six, where zero signified "completely straight" and six meant "completely homosexual," more than a third of the young demographic chose a number between one and five, indicating that they were bisexual to some degree. Only 24 percent of their older counterparts identified this way.

The article itself doesn't actually mention trans identity specifically, and there's no link to the study itself so I can't check the full data. However, it seems unlikely that 1/3 of gen z is actually bi, because that's such a massive jump and sexual prefences don't really work like that. Unless Alex Jones was right about the gay frog chemicals, sexual preferences shouldn't change like this, because sexual preferences are innate. It seems more likely that, given that the respondants to this are largely impressionable kids, that respondents were just saying what they thought pollster wanted to hear (or that "on a scale of 0 to 6, how gay are you" is not a very scientific way of polling people).

Assuming we go with the first theory, that does suggest there's a fairly large population of kids who are sexually confused and uncertain. In which case it makes sense to set barriers for transitioning and other things that have permanent effects, because you have a larger and growing population of cases where that therapy could prove harmful.


However, given the way this bill was written, if that was the intent it didn't get translated properly onto paper, but vox's guess that it's a reaction to high profile trans children is probably correct (though naturally they go on to rant about the conservative war on trans people or whatever). They have a quote from a doctor there saying that gender identity will typically solidify by age 3 or 4, which sounds ridiculous but as far as I can tell is true. That said, if it sounds like it's wrong, some people will assume it is/confuse it with sexual identity (which doesn't set in until much, much later but is heavily mixed in with LGBT advocacy)/etc, and then leap to an incorrect conclusion based on that. Vox assumes malice because of course they do, but this would hardly be the first time well meaning but misinformed politicians do something stupid.

 

[Shipmaster Sane]

Given even this article's own statements, I can understand the reasoning behind such laws, but it also seems as though they are badly written and overreaching. Per the linked article about Gen Z identifying as queer/trans more than previous generations:



The article itself doesn't actually mention trans identity specifically, and there's no link to the study itself so I can't check the full data. However, it seems unlikely that 1/3 of gen z is actually bi, because that's such a massive jump and sexual prefences don't really work like that. Unless Alex Jones was right about the gay frog chemicals, sexual preferences shouldn't change like this, because sexual preferences are innate. It seems more likely that, given that the respondants to this are largely impressionable kids, that respondents were just saying what they thought pollster wanted to hear (or that "on a scale of 0 to 6, how gay are you" is not a very scientific way of polling people).

Assuming we go with the first theory, that does suggest there's a fairly large population of kids who are sexually confused and uncertain. In which case it makes sense to set barriers for transitioning and other things that have permanent effects, because you have a larger and growing population of cases where that therapy could prove harmful.


However, given the way this bill was written, if that was the intent it didn't get translated properly onto paper, but vox's guess that it's a reaction to high profile trans children is probably correct (though naturally they go on to rant about the conservative war on trans people or whatever). They have a quote from a doctor there saying that gender identity will typically solidify by age 3 or 4, which sounds ridiculous but as far as I can tell is true. That said, if it sounds like it's wrong, some people will assume it is/confuse it with sexual identity (which doesn't set in until much, much later but is heavily mixed in with LGBT advocacy)/etc, and then leap to an incorrect conclusion based on that. Vox assumes malice because of course they do, but this would hardly be the first time well meaning but misinformed politicians do something stupid.

Anything that lowers the number of people engaging in this practice without violence is a good thing.


John Money's corpse should be dug up and thrown into a volcano.

 

[Scottty]

Given even this article's own statements, I can understand the reasoning behind such laws, but it also seems as though they are badly written and overreaching.

Which is what typically happens when politicians make laws about things that they don't really understand. Government tends to be a blunt instrument.
That being said, it's good that something is being done to prevent young people's lives from being ruined by unethical people with a socio-political agenda.

 

[Cherico]

Transitioning is one of the single most important decisions you can make in your life.

Its one of those things that will impact you forever, that's not a decision that you should make as a child. Its some thing you should wait until your an adult to do and even then you need to seriously think about it.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

Transitioning is one of the single most important decisions you can make in your life.

Its one of those things that will impact you forever, that's not a decision that you should make as a child. Its some thing you should wait until your an adult to do and even then you need to seriously think about it.

Former transgender patient will tell court that sex change clinic is putting children on 'torturous' path

A former transgender patient has mounted an unprecedented legal challenge against a sex change clinic she claims is putting children on a "torturous”, “permanent” and “unnecessary path, High Court documents reveal.

www.telegraph.co.uk

If a Former Transsexual has something negative to say about it, you know there's a problem

 

[Abhorsen]

Former transgender patient will tell court that sex change clinic is putting children on 'torturous' path

A former transgender patient has mounted an unprecedented legal challenge against a sex change clinic she claims is putting children on a "torturous”, “permanent” and “unnecessary path, High Court documents reveal.

www.telegraph.co.uk

If a Former Transsexual has something negative to say about it, you know there's a problem

... That's a really bad argument. Former X frequently have a problem with X, regardless of what X is. These laws seem particularly bad because some seem to require mandatory reporting of gender questioning behavior from doctors or teachers to parents. The forced outing of kids to their parents is really stupid.

 

[Bacle]

Good, this is stuff that should not be pushed or given to children at all.

If someone wants to 'transistion', they should do so as an adult, using thier own time and money.

 

[Deleted member]

@CarlManvers2019 the individual in question was probably transgender. Tavistock, by the way, is the facility where staff has been quitting because of pressure to simply transition everyone who comes through the doors, regardless of diagnosis. So it has separate, really disturbing issues.

@prinCZess Ten years ago I would have agreed with you, but my concern now is progressive parents forcing their children into transitioning as a means of liberal virtue-signaling. There are two opposing problems, the first being that for true or primary transsexuals, outcomes would unambiguously just keep improving the sooner they transitioned. The second is that there is at least some evidence of transitory identity problems in childhood, and the idea of transitioning children who don't need it is legitimately quite horrifying. After all, diagnosis of transsexualism takes a sustained period of time for differential diagnosis with multiple psychiatric professionals when done properly. Without a pattern of behaviour as an outward signal of the mind, it's very hard to say if someone should transition or not.

On the third hand, state imposed delays in transition would seriously increase the cost for an individual. So you essentially have the State imposing thirty thousand + worth of expenses on a young adult by mandating they develop incorrectly--so if they are a transsexual who will, inevitably, transition no matter what--the State has very much made their life harder.

In the end, I would like to see attempts at proper, reliable diagnostics for child transsexuals so that the difference can be split on this issue -- but I think in moral terms protecting children is more important when we don't have that data. I am really worried that transgenderism has become a fad for Generation-Z, and the implications of that are terrifying.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

@CarlManvers2019 the individual in question was probably transgender. Tavistock, by the way, is the facility where staff has been quitting because of pressure to simply transition everyone who comes through the doors, regardless of diagnosis. So it has separate, really disturbing issues.

How else will they get customers....very very disgusting and too easy to do

Who is more at fault in the end though?

 

[Doomsought]

Eh, There's a justified use for these drugs and procedures a blanket ban doesn't serve well or properly.

No, there aren't. The procedures are entirely "Experimental" and a majority (60%) of transgender children return to normal after a few years of puberty if nothing is done about the condition.

In the end, I would like to see attempts at proper, reliable diagnostics for child transsexuals so that the difference can be split on this issue -- but I think in moral terms protecting children is more important when we don't have that data.

We have the data that shows that the psycologicla condition can go away. That means that transitioning can never be justified because the proper treatment is the one that returns the child to normal. All we need to do is study how children return to normal during puberty to find out what the real cure is.

These laws seem particularly bad because some seem to require mandatory reporting of gender questioning behavior from doctors or teachers to parents.

It is a fascist line of thinking, where the state rather than the parent has the responsibility to care for children. Parents have the right to know everything about their children.

 

[Deleted member]

We have the data that shows that the psycologicla condition can go away. That means that transitioning can never be justified because the proper treatment is the one that returns the child to normal. All we need to do is study how children return to normal during puberty to find out what the real cure is.

That is only true with transgenderism, which was previously called secondary transsexualism. Ironically because of the political ideology of these same transgenderists, it's impossible to find high-quality studies on the subject anymore. However, in the 80s and the 90s, we had plenty of good data, take for example this survey from 1984 of three major studies conducted beforehand:

Outcome of sex reassignment surgery B. Lundström I. Pauly J. Wålinder First published: October 1984



ABSTRACT– Three independent reviews of the world literature dealing with the outcome of sex reassignment surgery in transsexualism are presented. In 10‐15 % of the patients who undergo sex reassignment the results end up in a failure. There are as many failures in the female to male group as in the male to female group. Optimal results from the surgical procedures are important for a successful outcome. Relatively high age when first requesting sex reassignment may be regarded as a risk factor for poor outcome. Genuine transsexuals as a group seem to have a better prognosis for successful outcome of sex reassignment than a group of secondary transsexuals (i.e. transvestites and effeminate homosexuals). On the other hand, secondary transsexuals do better than genuine transsexuals when sex reassignment is refused. It is stressed that great importance should be given to the differential diagnosis when evaluating gender dysphoric patients for sex reassignment.

There is no "cure" for primary transsexualism, and good science founded before the current ideological winds repeatedly demonstrate this; however, what has happened now is that two different conditions have been conflated due to ideologically driven lobbying on the part of the transgenderists, so of course we see repentance, because two different conditions (one that is transitory and curable and one that is not) have been lumped together to advance the ideological agenda of those with the transitory and curable condition. Careful differential diagnosis was highly effective at separating primary transsexualism from transgenderism and produced good outcomes in both groups of patients by allowing transsexuals to transition and transgenders to be treated back to a healthy identity with their birth sex. That was torn down for political reasons.

 

[Lanmandragon]

... That's a really bad argument. Former X frequently have a problem with X, regardless of what X is. These laws seem particularly bad because some seem to require mandatory reporting of gender questioning behavior from doctors or teachers to parents. The forced outing of kids to their parents is really stupid.

I could see Drs not having to report or whatever. Teachers shoukd absolutley be required to though. This idea that schools and teachers should have any authority over parents is ridiculous.

 

[Abhorsen]

I could see Drs not having to report or whatever. Teachers shoukd absolutley be required to though. This idea that schools and teachers should have any authority over parents is ridiculous.

Not reporting isn't having authority over the parents though. It's just not telling them everything. Generalized, blunt force rules like this are part of the problem of government. Say the teacher knows that the parent is very religiously conservative and outing the child could go badly? Should the teacher report then?

What if the Parents are crazy liberals, and the boy tried on a dress just once, should the kid be reported then? Even if the teacher fears that the kid could be pressured into transitioning when the boy might just be gay?

Overall, this just seems like more evidence we don't want government in charge of schools.

 

[LordsFire]

Not reporting isn't having authority over the parents though. It's just not telling them everything. Generalized, blunt force rules like this are part of the problem of government. Say the teacher knows that the parent is very religiously conservative and outing the child could go badly? Should the teacher report then?

What if the Parents are crazy liberals, and the boy tried on a dress just once, should the kid be reported then? Even if the teacher fears that the kid could be pressured into transitioning when the boy might just be gay?

Overall, this just seems like more evidence we don't want government in charge of schools.

If the parents are not morally and legally responsible above all others for the care of their child, who is?

When you have a proven seriously abusive parent, custody is taken away. This is because the parent has demonstrably proven themselves to be unfit for the role in a criminal way.

Outside of that, by what justification does anybody else get first say in the care of a child, instead of the parent?

 

[Abhorsen]

If the parents are not morally and legally responsible above all others for the care of their child, who is?

When you have a proven seriously abusive parent, custody is taken away. This is because the parent has demonstrably proven themselves to be unfit for the role in a criminal way.

Outside of that, by what justification does anybody else get first say in the care of a child, instead of the parent?

I don't think that declining to inform the parents of something counts as stopping care for the child, or having authority over the parents. Outing people in general is a thing that people don't do, and for good reason. Mandating that teachers out children to parents seems like a really stupid idea.