SC Senate Passes Bill Banning Affirmative Care For Minors

[RileyG]

Hey look, empty assertions followed by pretending there's something wrong with me for questioning them.

That's not the way to make people think a post has anything of substance to say.

There are no empty assertions.

More goading.

Just because you do not agree with someone doesn't make it an "empty assertion."

Scream all you want.

It doesn't change the fact a biological male has no idea what it's like to be a woman or vice versa. Reality doesn't change based on someone's "feelings."

Sorry. I'm not going to validate someone's delusion.

 

[A2SG]

Since when were you concerned about "correct terms".

I'm not dogmatic about it...but I do prefer less confusion to more of it.

-- A2SG, granted, not everyone feels the same way.....

 

[Pommer]

Boom!

When in medicine is it “wrong” to say, “hold on, let’s take a better look at the services that we are providing to ensure that we’re doing out best for our patients!”?

This is part of the process that shows it [transgender-medicne] recognizes that the system that the transgender community had had been smaller, but a tighter-run (sub)discipline base.
They know that they’re reaching the people who need their help, but are still concerned about offering treatment(s) to those people who probably aren’t transgender, but in an odd place in their lives.
Making sure that “profit-motivated” clinics aren’t just popping up to prey on a new “market”, will be the next thing, accreditation is right around the corner. Hello “government intervention”.

This isn’t the article you thought.

 

[IceJad]

South Carolina has joined 24 other states in banning affirmative therapy and/or puberty blockers.for.minors. This bill.also prevents schools from hiding a kids desire to be trans in the school. This is all great news.

We are slowly winning this battle to protect kids from harm.

From rhe article.

The bill bars health professionals from performing gender-transition surgeries, prescribing puberty blockers and overseeing hormone treatments for patients under 18.

School principals or vice principals would have to notify parents or guardians if a child wanted to use a name other than their legal one, or a nickname or pronouns that did not match their sex assigned at birth.

It's pretty obvious the author is a leftist with a left wing bias but that's to be expected these days from journalists. Sex isn't assigned. Sex is. No doctor assigns sex, it's a biological reality. I also wonder how much the author left out regarding how this bill came to be. What research was used. What information was used in order to pass this bill. Did anyone testify in support or opposition to the bill and what did they say?

This is great news indeed.

South Carolina Senate approves ban on gender-affirming care for transgender minors

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — The South Carolina Senate on Thursday approved a ban on gender-affirming care for transgender minors after supporters defeated efforts to only ban treatments that would be con…

kdvr.com

Great news indeed. I personally have no qualms with people who want to transition as long as they are no longer minors. 18 in the US if I'm not mistaken. If you can't vote then you can't transition. Simple as that. There is a reason why nearly every nation on earth has a legal definition for an adult. To make sure they have lived sufficiently long enough to be able to make their own informed decision. Anything before that they are protected by the law.

Of course sex isn't assigned by doctors, everyone knows that - even those who advocate otherwise. They just want to redefine the way we see reality by implanting a societal notion we can disregards natural order for the sake of acceptance. Control of society by shame, guilt and intimidation. Redefine science by redefining the societal understanding of science. XX and XY don't play a role as long as one chooses to believe they are not their gender at birth. That sex and gender are different. Not just synonyms of the other. Just like how the Church use to define an Earth centric universe in opposition to the Helios centric one.

 

[rjs330]

When in medicine is it “wrong” to say, “hold on, let’s take a better look at the services that we are providing to ensure that we’re doing out best for our patients!”?

This is part of the process that shows it [transgender-medicne] recognizes that the system that the transgender community had had been smaller, but a tighter-run (sub)discipline base.
They know that they’re reaching the people who need their help, but are still concerned about offering treatment(s) to those people who probably aren’t transgender, but in an odd place in their lives.
Making sure that “profit-motivated” clinics aren’t just popping up to prey on a new “market”, will be the next thing, accreditation is right around the corner. Hello “government intervention”.

This isn’t the article you thought.

This is funny. You've been defending Affirmative Care all along and we've been pointing out how other countries have stopped the practices and you've never sided with them, but sided with Affirmative Care models in the US.

Now comes a long a therapist who has deep concerns about it and points to other countries and now you decide to sound like it just makes sense.

You might take another look at this article and interview and focus on the children problem. You'll find she is agreeing with us and not you and your defense of Affirmative Care.

Here's one thing she said. "For professional people, whether they’re medical or mental-health [specialists], to say, “Just accept what the kid says and then make your decisions accordingly” ignores the long history we have of issues in child and adolescent development, and it is a disservice to the patient."

Which of course we've been saying all along and you and other leftists on this board have totally disagreed with. We all see it now. You don't fool.any of us.

I don't think it's the article you seem to believe it is.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'm not dogmatic about it...but I do prefer less confusion to more of it.

That's a good one.

 

[ozso]

This is funny. You've been defending Affirmative Care all along and we've been pointing out how other countries have stopped the practices and you've never sided with them, but sided with Affirmative Care models in the US.

Now comes a long a therapist who has deep concerns about it and points to other countries and now you decide to sound like it just makes sense.

You might take another look at this article and interview and focus on the children problem. You'll find she is agreeing with us and not you and your defense of Affirmative Care.

Here's one thing she said. "For professional people, whether they’re medical or mental-health [specialists], to say, “Just accept what the kid says and then make your decisions accordingly” ignores the long history we have of issues in child and adolescent development, and it is a disservice to the patient."

Which of course we've been saying all along and you and other leftists on this board have totally disagreed with. We all see it now. You don't fool.any of us.

I don't think it's the article you seem to believe it is.

When one weds themselves to progressive liberalism, they're compelled to support anything progressive liberalism says to support, no matter what it is or how crazy it is.

 

[Ana the Ist]

When in medicine is it “wrong” to say, “hold on, let’s take a better look at the services that we are providing to ensure that we’re doing out best for our patients!”?

This is part of the process that shows it [transgender-medicne] recognizes that the system that the transgender community had had been smaller, but a tighter-run (sub)discipline base.
They know that they’re reaching the people who need their help, but are still concerned about offering treatment(s) to those people who probably aren’t transgender, but in an odd place in their lives.
Making sure that “profit-motivated” clinics aren’t just popping up to prey on a new “market”, will be the next thing, accreditation is right around the corner. Hello “government intervention”.

This isn’t the article you thought.

I think it's important to understand what "best practices" and "standards of care" are....

These should be thought of as the guidelines for the treatment of a patient....and while there's a fair amount of flexibility (typically) if a doctor is going to go well outside the guidelines...they had better have a very good reason for doing so. This is because of the possibility of negative effects from non-standard care being used in legal cases where the patient may seek damages. Other doctors will be able to point out the ways the initial doctor deviated from standard practice and this can be used to seek monetary compensation and cause the doctor to lose the ability to practice.

This is a good way to think of "standards of care" because when it comes to the Affirmative Care model....there are inherently contradictory standards of care within the model. For example....

1. Practitioners are told repeatedly to affirm the claims of gender identity that the patient is making. It doesn't matter if the doctor is in agreement with the patient or not...affirmation is key to this model and the standards of care this model recommends reflect that. At no point should the doctor suggest or attempt to persuade the patient that perhaps they are incorrect about their gender identity.

2. Explore other possible causes for feelings of anxiety or discomfort or psychological distress that may be unrelated to gender dysphoria or puberty or gender identity. Autism for example has a high comorbidity with gender dysphoria...and should be ruled out as a cause for seeking treatment prior to any medicines or surgeries are pursued.

If you don't see the issue here....it's that doing #2 can easily conflict with #1. If you don't think that's a big deal....or perhaps you think it shouldn't be a big deal to doctors....then consider the way the standards are written above. #1 is something that the Doctor must do....every time.... regardless of what the doctor may believe is best. #2 is something of an afterthought...and while it is something that the doctor should do, #1 is something that the doctor must do. This is the Affirmative Care model....not the "You Might Be Wrong About Your Gender Identity So Let's Try To Figure This Out" model. Consistently throughout the standards of care....you'll see that the only thing that the doctors will actually risk legal trouble for are....

1. Failing to affirm the gender of the patient.
2. Failing to get consent of the parent for patients under 18.

That's about it. Anything else can be excused as potentially conflicting with #1 and once they have parental consent....they're basically off the hook. They can't guarantee any results because the research isn't strong enough to give any expected outcomes. There's literally nothing on the long term effects other than new research showing things like under-development of genitalia due to puberty blockers and sterilization. It's not as if all possible side effects can be disclosed to the parents....that research doesn't exist.

Even the research claiming these treatments are overwhelmingly effective and positive are quackery. They require patients to go back to the doctor who experimented on them, insist that they regret the decision, and face the reality of the doctor having no solutions or even suggestions for fixing the damage done. Newer research that involves following up over longer periods show the pool of people who regret their treatments indicate this "treatment" may be harming a far greater percentage than the tiny percentage advertised.

This is why the expert being interviewed is spending the rest of their days advocating against the current Affirmative Care model, treatments, and overall direction of the trans medical community they were at the head of, for hundreds of thousands of dollars a year (if not millions) for so long.

 

[KCfromNC]

We are in trouble if you believe what you just wrote. They have mental health professionals who treat lunacy.

If you missed it, it was a simple application of your previous post's approach to a slightly different situation. If you see that as lunacy, you understand why others might not take that post seriously.

 

[KCfromNC]

That's not the case at all when it comes to puberty blockers, mastectomies, hysterectomies and castration on children. Try coming up with a more equivalent comparison.

If I did, would I just be treated to more posts asserting without evidence or reason that the comparison was bad because it made it obvious that the previous excuse isn't the real reason these treatments are being opposed?

 

[KCfromNC]

Besides, cancer treatment and “gender affirming care” aren’t even remotely the same.

They're both treatments used on children which might not have a two decade long proven track record, are not 100% certain to work, and might potentially have side effects. So the comparison seems apt, given that those were excuses previously brought up to ban one of the two.

If those aren't actually relevant reasons to do so, weird that posts would bring them up rather than explain the real reasons we should get the government involved in banning parents from these particular medical choices for their kids.

 

[KCfromNC]

Once again I refer you to what other countries have done in reference to this.

If I found a groups from another country which opposed the legislation expressed in the OP would you immediately agree that legislation is a bad idea? Just curious how consistent this argument that random appeals to vague "other countries" is.

 

[KCfromNC]

You know good and well that lawmakers don't just listen to those that testify in a hearing. They do thier own research. We've seen hearings on everything from abortions to smoking Bans to environmental issues to the pipelines. And legislators also oay attention to other things besides who sits and speaks. You know there were gearing about motorcycle helmet laws and tge testimony against them was overwhelming, but they did it anyway. We know that many medical professionals in the US are still on the trans train. They spout "research" that has been proven to be junk science. That's why this is necessary. If medical professionals won't protect kids and follow the findings then someone has to do it. You know that they were still trying to say these treatments save lives? What a joke. There is absolutely no research that proves that. If medical professionals in the US refuse to follow the world wide research and communities then I don't know what to say. Do you know the Pediatrics Association has REFUSED to look into this. Same goes for Endocrine Society despite members asking them to do tge systematic review. There is something very wrong here when medical professionals refuse to review the research.

Lots of words here, but I note that none of them are direct quotes like mine from the people involved in drafting the legislation saying that it was based on their religious beliefs.

 

[KCfromNC]

I think a lot of doctors and researchers are being pressured by the trans activist to ignore the long term effects of gender affirming care and hormone therapy.

Compare and contrast with previous talking points that "Nobody knows what the longterm effects will be."

When the talking points contradict themselves, it makes one wonder what the actual reasons are. But we don't have to go far - the OP's article has direct quotes showing the religious bias of the people trying to enact these laws in full force.

 

[KCfromNC]

This is one person's statement out of many who voted on the bill.

What other quotes were you basing your claim on?

Looks like another post with lots of bluster to try and avoid the plainly stated reason for these laws directly from the people working to pass them. Not my problem they can't get their talking points in line.

 

[KCfromNC]

There are no empty assertions.

More goading.

Just because you do not agree with someone doesn't make it an "empty assertion."

Scream all you want.

Weird that simply pointing out a post provided no evidence would provoke such an impassioned response. Rather than pounding the table, seems like it would have been easier to provide actual reasons for believing the claims in it. If those reasons existed, of course.

 

[Pommer]

This is funny. You've been defending Affirmative Care all along and we've been pointing out how other countries have stopped the practices and you've never sided with them, but sided with Affirmative Care models in the US.

I’ve modified my opinion!?

Now comes a long a therapist who has deep concerns about it and points to other countries and now you decide to sound like it just makes sense.

New information has been made available and I’ve shifted a wee bit in my position, what sort of heresy am I doing!?

You might take another look at this article and interview and focus on the children problem. You'll find she is agreeing with us and not you and your defense of Affirmative Care.

Here's one thing she said. "For professional people, whether they’re medical or mental-health [specialists], to say, “Just accept what the kid says and then make your decisions accordingly” ignores the long history we have of issues in child and adolescent development, and it is a disservice to the patient."

Someone who has been working in their field of study is concerned that the growth of that field might become corrupt because of an influx of money, (stemming from the hard-fought-for legitimacy), ought to be taken seriously.

Which of course we've been saying all along and you and other leftists on this board have totally disagreed with. We all see it now. You don't fool.any of us.

Wow, your cynicism is touching.

I don't think it's the article you seem to believe it is.

Subtlety and nuance aren’t everyone’s forte.

 

[Pommer]

When one weds themselves to progressive liberalism, they're compelled to support anything progressive liberalism says to support, no matter what it is or how crazy it is.

This will make me want to move closer to “your side”, how?

 

[Pommer]

If I found a groups from another country which opposed the legislation expressed in the OP would you immediately agree that legislation is a bad idea? Just curious how consistent this argument that random appeals to vague "other countries" is.

It’d be sweet if the USA could get on board with the Government funded healthcare that these other nations have adopted, then the power of that government-funding would ensure that treatments for various conditions were in-line with the top-echelon modalities (rather than mostly “market-forces”…).
But that’s “bad” too, otherwise we’d’ve already had it, because we’re the Best Country on Earth.

 

[RileyG]

They're both treatments used on children which might not have a two decade long proven track record, are not 100% certain to work, and might potentially have side effects. So the comparison seems apt, given that those were excuses previously brought up to ban one of the two.

If those aren't actually relevant reasons to do so, weird that posts would bring them up rather than explain the real reasons we should get the government involved in banning parents from these particular medical choices for their kids.

One is used to treat cancer and the other is essentially permanent cosmetic surgery. Minors aren’t mature enough to know if they truly are “transgender” or not.