Federal Judge Tosses Arkansas Law Banning Gender-Affirming Care for Children

[MotoToTheMax]

Slavery wasn’t bad enough to initiate the Parouisa, nor the Holocaust, but this?, this is the thing that’ll do it?

Jesus is the Father that went to the corner store for a pack of smokes. Any minute now he'll surely be back. Aaannnnyyy minute now...

 

[returntosender]

Slavery wasn’t bad enough to initiate the Parouisa, nor the Holocaust, but this?, this is the thing that’ll do it?

I hope so. This wouldn't happen if parents instilled in their children how special they are an how much they are loved.
MICKIE O'ROURKE,. He could be a good witness for the children now. They should arrest the parents.

 

[KCfromNC]

From the court's perspective, I get why they're erroring on the side of caution and opting to shutdown bans instead of upholding them.

Might be believable, if it weren't for the harm that simply trying to ignore these sorts of conditions has been proven to cause.

That, and the obvious motivations of the legislators pushing through the bans.

on the other side, you have people who suggest that if a 11 year old boy says "I feel like girl", we should immediately reach for the penis saw and estrogen supplements after a 20 minute questionnaire and 45 minute visit at a gender care clinic (that has a profit motive for performing as many affirming services as possible)

Seems like hyperbole (or an outright fabrication) designed to take some of the heat off the GOP's big government approach by trying to pretend that they're somehow balancing out these made up people on the left.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Seems like hyperbole (or an outright fabrication) designed to take some of the heat off the GOP's big government approach by trying to pretend that they're somehow balancing out these made up people on the left.

It's not hyperbole, in the other thread I listed snippets from the Gender Clinics' own websites touting the "First Assessment, Single Session" protocol they use, and another touting that "In most cases, you can receive hormones after your first visit even if you don't have a referral from a mental health provider"

In fact, it looks like Planned Parenthood also offers many of those services now, and they use very similar language to the example I provided from the Boston hospital.

Hormone Therapy - First Visit

What to expect on your first visit for gender affirming hormone therapy.

www.plannedparenthood.org

In most cases your clinician will be able to prescribe hormones the same day as your first visit. No letter from a mental health provider is required.
(and on their other linked "what to expect" page) Expect your first visit to take anywhere from 1 to 2 hours.


The examples I provided in the other thread (and perhaps I referenced them in this thread as well) were from big time players in this field.
Boston Children's Hospital, Cincinnati Transgender Health Center, and the Gender Affirming Health Center @ UCLA Health are the 1st, 3rd, and 4th largest operators in this space...and obviously Planned Parenthood is a major organization and a household name. These aren't "fringe" players or "extreme outliers" in this realm.

So pretending that "nobody is trying to fast track these things or rush the process...that's just GOP scaremongering" is gaslighting.


Would you agree that being able to go on hormone therapy after a single visit (with no referral from a mental health provider) that's no more than a blood draw and a 1-2 hour consult sounds like it's "rushing the process" a bit?

For such a major life changing decision (especially for a person who's in the age range of 16-25), is a 1 hour consult "due diligence"?

 

[rjs330]

It's not hyperbole, in the other thread I listed snippets from the Gender Clinics' own websites touting the "First Assessment, Single Session" protocol they use, and another touting that "In most cases, you can receive hormones after your first visit even if you don't have a referral from a mental health provider"

In fact, it looks like Planned Parenthood also offers many of those services now, and they use very similar language to the example I provided from the Boston hospital.

Hormone Therapy - First Visit

What to expect on your first visit for gender affirming hormone therapy.

www.plannedparenthood.org

In most cases your clinician will be able to prescribe hormones the same day as your first visit. No letter from a mental health provider is required.
(and on their other linked "what to expect" page) Expect your first visit to take anywhere from 1 to 2 hours.


The examples I provided in the other thread (and perhaps I referenced them in this thread as well) were from big time players in this field.
Boston Children's Hospital, Cincinnati Transgender Health Center, and the Gender Affirming Health Center @ UCLA Health are the 1st, 3rd, and 4th largest operators in this space...and obviously Planned Parenthood is a major organization and a household name. These aren't "fringe" players or "extreme outliers" in this realm.

So pretending that "nobody is trying to fast track these things or rush the process...that's just GOP scaremongering" is gaslighting.


Would you agree that being able to go on hormone therapy after a single visit (with no referral from a mental health provider) that's no more than a blood draw and a 1-2 hour consult sounds like it's "rushing the process" a bit?

For such a major life changing decision (especially for a person who's in the age range of 16-25), is a 1 hour consult "due diligence"?

Well the story will probably change from there is no fast tracking to yes there is fast tracking but if a doctor signs off in it then there is nothing wrong with it. That's how this stuff usually works. The left always denies first. Then once they can't anymore they change it to "so what it's a good thing".

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Well the story will probably change from there is no fast tracking to yes there is fast tracking but if a doctor signs off in it then there is nothing wrong with it. That's how this stuff usually works. The left always denies first. Then once they can't anymore they change it to "so what it's a good thing".

I don't doubt that some will follow that approach (it's happened in the past)

But I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt to some of the people who likely just weren't aware that it was happening.

Ruy Teixera (a progressive) wrote a piece that explains some of the phenomena that he calls "The Fox News Fallacy"
The Fox News Fallacy is having a dire effect on many Democrats. This is the idea that if Fox News (substitute here the conservative bête noire of your choice if you prefer) says X then there must be absolutely nothing to X and the job of Democrats is to assert that loudly and often. The problem is that an issue is not necessarily completely invalid just because Fox News mentions it.

Part of that is the fault of some of the right-leaning publications themselves for crying wolf on a lot of things (or exaggerating certain things regularly in the past), but Ruy's point was that his fellow people on the left shouldn't have a default stance of "dismissal" simply because an issue is mentioned by a right-leaning publication.

 

[Mr E]

Gender Affirming care is where you surgically mutilate a person so his physical body matches his gender dysphoria.
Therefore Identity Affirming care is where you surgically divide up the head of a schizophrenic into how many ever personalities he seems to have.
Makes as much sense.

I despise the terminology. "Gender affirming care" sounds so good and proper, doesn't it? The reality is disgusting. I will never forget the first time I walked in on a double mastectomy being performed on a thirteen year old girl at a Children's Hospital. I was appalled at the procedure and offended deeply by the very idea that this would even be allowed at a hospital where Children's needs are otherwise met everyday in meaningful ways that don't include mutilation. It's a big money-maker for these Children's Hospitals-- which is the root of why they allow and now promote the procedures. I lost all respect for the plastic surgeon who greedily signed up for this and for the facilities where it's promoted.

Secondly, these headlines and the associated court proceedings are written in a way that masks or disguises the reality. Arkansas had a law BANNING Gender Affirming Care? Well, that sounds terrible. The judge tossed out that law banning gender affirming care? Well, good for him right?

It's just the opposite. Arkansas passed a law that would prohibit these kinds of surgeries on minors, and some unelected liberal judge single-handedly tossed out the law, because he/she/them/they/some way wants the insanity to continue.

 

[rjs330]

I don't doubt that some will follow that approach (it's happened in the past)

But I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt to some of the people who likely just weren't aware that it was happening.

Ruy Teixera (a progressive) wrote a piece that explains some of the phenomena that he calls "The Fox News Fallacy"
The Fox News Fallacy is having a dire effect on many Democrats. This is the idea that if Fox News (substitute here the conservative bête noire of your choice if you prefer) says X then there must be absolutely nothing to X and the job of Democrats is to assert that loudly and often. The problem is that an issue is not necessarily completely invalid just because Fox News mentions it.

Part of that is the fault of some of the right-leaning publications themselves for crying wolf on a lot of things (or exaggerating certain things regularly in the past), but Ruy's point was that his fellow people on the left shouldn't have a default stance of "dismissal" simply because an issue is mentioned by a right-leaning publication.

Yes that's true. I think a lot of folks don't pay any attention to any of this. A brief cursory glance and then they move on to their own life their own challenges. If they do pay closer attention they will use social media to get information. And it's filled with disinformation or misinformation.

I think there's also the CNN fallacy as well. If it comes from a liberal source then there is nothing to it and it's just propaganda. And they might deserve that as well.

And the right shouldn't have a stance on dismissal just cause a left wing publication puts it out.

But I have to say I've seen the "it's not happening" to the "okay it is happening and it's good" stance far more from the left these days.

 

[rjs330]

I despise the terminology. "Gender affirming care" sounds so good and proper, doesn't it? The reality is disgusting. I will never forget the first time I walked in on a double mastectomy being performed on a thirteen year old girl at a Children's Hospital. I was appalled at the procedure and offended deeply by the very idea that this would even be allowed at a hospital where Children's needs are otherwise met everyday in meaningful ways that don't include mutilation. It's a big money-maker for these Children's Hospitals-- which is the root of why they allow and now promote the procedures. I lost all respect for the plastic surgeon who greedily signed up for this and for the facilities where it's promoted.

Secondly, these headlines and the associated court proceedings are written in a way that masks or disguises the reality. Arkansas had a law BANNING Gender Affirming Care? Well, that sounds terrible. The judge tossed out that law banning gender affirming care? Well, good for him right?

It's just the opposite. Arkansas passed a law that would prohibit these kinds of surgeries on minors, and some unelected liberal judge single-handedly tossed out the law, because he/she/them/they/some way wants the insanity to continue.

I sure hope Arkansas pursues the issue and continues to fight it in court. This stuff does need to be banned because the medical community can't seem to control themselves. I listened to a pediatrician describe what happened in the AAP regarding this issue and it's quite appalling. No wonder legislators are acting on this. They have to because the medical community isn't.

 

[KCfromNC]

It's not hyperbole, in the other thread I listed snippets from the Gender Clinics' own websites touting the "First Assessment, Single Session" protocol they use, and another touting that "In most cases, you can receive hormones after your first visit even if you don't have a referral from a mental health provider"

Remember that here's the quote I was questioning, emphasis mine : "on the other side, you have people who suggest that if a 11 year old boy says "I feel like girl", we should immediately reach for the penis saw and estrogen supplements after a 20 minute questionnaire and 45 minute visit at a gender care clinic"