Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I like my example because lobotomies were pushed by the medical community as a great treatment for mentally ill patients. The only ones pushing female circumcisions are parents and the cultural practices of their communities. But I do agree with you that this is similar.
That's true, modern medicine only makes money off of you if they can drug you or cut you up or expose you to toxic levels of radiation.
Of course, I wouldn't be surprised to see a push for Health insurances to cover these procedures in the near future under the guise of providing 'care.'
What a sick sick sick society we are, someone needs to destroy us.
He is lying. He didn't do any research. If he had, he would have found many cases with little effort.
The question, as you presented it in your original post, wasn't about Arkansas.
You are ignoring the fact that Arkansas hasn’t had a procedure in 5 years yet she was in favor of a ban.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hbdwihdh378y9
These are not medical procedures. It is appropriate for the state to ban these procedures on the same grounds that the state can ban sex with minors even if it's the parents who want to pimp the child out. The child can't give legal consent. And no one -- parent or child -- can give informed consent because the people pushing these procedures deliberately misrepresent the relevant facts (to the extent they are even known or knowable).
No it is not appropriate for politicians to ban medical procedures recognized by several medical organizations. These are parental decisions done in collaboration with doctors. Comparing this to sex with minors which no one supports is other worldly.
The issue is government being involved in this to any degree whatsoever.
To Frank's point, if the government is being required to fund, assist, exempt, etc these surgeries/therapies/drug courses/etc, then yes, by all means, the legislature gets a say because the legislature is picking up the tab. The person paying the bills should always have a say in how their money gets spent.
Point being - get the government out of the business of transgender "medicine" entirely, and treat that entire wing of medicine EXACTLY like we do Lasic, after-market bewbz, liposuction and every other form of voluntary cosmetic surgery/pharmacy/treatment/etc. Then yes, absolutely, the government has no say until people start dying because of faulty procedures (see: "silicon breast implant complications and government response").
Until then, treat that nonsense exactly like getting a nose job. Mom, Dad and confused moron adolescent want to chemically alter sexual development? Cool, 100% out of pocket, no insurance, no government assistance...same as virtually all voluntary cosmetic surgery/treatment. If Mom and Dad think turning little Timmy into little Tina is so important, they'll happily come out of pocket for it. Government stays out of it, insurance stays out of it, collective funding of individual desire stays out of it, and Mom, Dad and their moron adolescent get to bear 100% of the cost.
Here's how it solves the moral authoritarian's dilemma - take away the government and insurance assistance, and let parents absorb 100% of what is typically a six figure proposition. Do that, and a whole lot fewer parents will rush to "affirm" the gender confusion of a dumbass adolescent and will likely have them wait a few years, during which time they'll get less confused and drop the idea entirely.
Here's how that solves the libertarians dilemma - government removed from anything = good.
Here's it solves the liberal authoritarian dilemma - no government stopping your cabal from transitioning the entire adolescent world into xe's and xer's. Moms, Dads and moron adolescents can create their own mutant tribe without any evil religious fundamentalist interference.
Everyone wins...just by removing the freaking government from the equation.
Here's how it solves the moral authoritarian's dilemma - .
There is no moral dilemma. Parents cannot decide to cut off their child's dick. If the parents so choose, they can cut off their own dick. I'd support that, if they do it with their own money, or a rusty saw themselves!
You are ignoring the fact that Arkansas hasn’t had a procedure in 5 years yet she was in favor of a ban.
Of course, I'm in favor of laws banning child mutilation even if there are no cases of said mutilation. The point of the law is to keep people from doing something, and if it stops just 1 child from being mutilated, it was a success.
Anyone who watches the videos of de-transitioners couldn’t possibly not see how awful this is to do to someone with dysphoria. There is nothing wrong with letting these kids get therapy and take the time to understand their issues before allowing puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, and amputating healthy body parts before they’re old enough to know their own minds.
Anyone who claims this is real healthcare is delusional.
I've said it before, but parents who do this to their children are practicing a form of Munchausen syndrome by proxy. And I would be surprised if the majority of them did not document the entire process on IG or TikTok for virtue signaling points. This is child abuse.
Not only that but they edit those interviews so who knows what was really said. I’d love to see him interview someone like Kellie-Jay Keen or Matt Walsh on this issue, but I understand he interviewed the AG for supporting legislation that bans the surgeries (and hell yes they should).
If you have the time, I highly recommend this playlist from The Heritage Foundation. It's mostly a panel compromised of MDs, psychologists, gender experts and people who have transitioned. It destroys the trans lobby's argument for gender-affirming care for minors.
Hormone therapy is dangerous.
The VAST majority of kids with gender dysphoria will outgrow it if just left alone.
Of that small percentage that don't, about half turn out gay and the other half are actually transsexual (IIRC.)
The best course of action for minors is to take a wait-and-see approach.
This is a further investigation done by Reuters linked through the article African Sunset posted.
It outlines all sides of this. It’s a really good balanced investigation.
Calling parents child abusers and reducing this down to “cutting off dicks” is way too simplistic.
Parents are not suffering from Munchausen by proxy.
There’s always some small exceptions, but parents do not want to be dealing with this.
Trust me, they really don’t. On top of all the problems that come with adolescence, this is the icing on the cake. It’s a horrible place to be. You’re literally damned if you do and damned if you don’t.
I think in the majority of cases, non physical intervention like social transitioning is the way to go. But that may not be indicated for children who have been obviously transgender since preschool. There are children who are no doubt transgender. Like children who know they’re gay very early on. In those circumstances I think it’s case by case. Pretty rare though.
The level of care needs to be extraordinarily high and I’m concerned it’s really not, given the fast medicine we practice now.
This really is worth reading, no matter where you sit.
Of course, I'm in favor of laws banning child mutilation even if there are no cases of said mutilation. The point of the law is to keep people from doing something, and if it stops just 1 child from being mutilated, it was a success.
That was a moronic argument by Jon Stewart.
It is a procedure approved by the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics; we should not have politicians making medical decisions for which they are unqualified. Maybe there are some other non-existent problems they want to address that are none of their business. This is nothing but pure politics juts like all the other bans, certainly they have more important issues to address.
It is a procedure approved by the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics; we should not have politicians making medical decisions for which they are unqualified. Maybe there are some other non-existent problems they want to address that are none of their business. This is nothing but pure politics juts like all the other bans, certainly they have more important issues to address.
I agree that politicians should not be making medical decisions, and that’s my stance on this too.
This shouldn’t be a political issue.
But I don’t agree it isn’t a problem. There are definitely problems here. It’s inevitable when you have a medical system run for profit.
I am deeply concerned about kids not getting the right care.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
