I strongly support bills banning pharmaceutical and surgical interventions for "trans"-identifying minors (under 18).
My reason is that there is NO DIAGNOSTIC METHODOLOGY (including any form of psychological evaluation) for determining which people will persist and which will desist in their gender dysphoria. Various studies show that the desistance rate is very high (~85%) in those treated with "watchful waiting", and absolutely no one has any idea how to distinguish these future desisters from future persisters.
Given this, performing irreversible medical physiological alterations (including blockers) on this population is nothing short of A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY.
There is simply nothing comparable to this in medical practice that has not later come to be regarded as a horrific scandal (eg lobotomies).
We the people in the US have been completely and utterly failed by our medical community on this. Other countries (UK, Sweden Finland, Norway) are doing much better, but what is needed is an ABSOLUTE AND TOTAL BAN on these physiology destroying procedures on minors, worldwide.
As a 67-year-old lifelong Democrat voter (until 2022) and activist, I applaud the red-state legislatures that have bravely enacted such bans in the face of massive disinformation from the captured ideologues of our sadly destructive medical community.
I’m conflicted. As a general principle, I think direct legislative interventions in medical matters set a bad precedent. But what is happening is so horrific I wonder if it might be warranted.
But there are other ways to approach the matter short of outright bans. Certainly, the statute of limitations should be much longer. Perhaps regulating the terms for giving consent, and transparency about the risks.
I don’t think passing laws alone will solve the problem. Red states can ban it, and blue states can become “sanctuary” states. Ultimately, there needs to be a broad shift in public consciousness.
On the one hand, I am encouraged that opposition is growing and the debate is shifting, however slightly. On the other, gender ideology is so deeply entrenched now that it is hard to foresee how this ends well.
I am glad that red states are acting and support the bans. Medical ethics demands that doctors” do no harm”. Kids are being experimented on , and it must be stopped. I can no longer vote for any Democrats who support gender ideology.
I don’t like the Republicans’ stand on guns ,so I may just not vote at all.I am appalled at the Democrats’ support of the gender cult, so it’s really hard to know what I’ll do.
I think that MarkS says it pretty well. The truth is, the trans life isn't a particularly happy life, so children should not be encouraged in that direction. Given that being trans is now a fad, allowing children to "transition" (I put it in quotes because it isn't really possible) just means that children will be transitioning who are not really trans at all, and those children must be protected. Bottom line: Children don't have the emotional maturity to make such decisions, which must be left to the adult yet to come.
My only concern is that the Republicans, in their haste, may not pass the most intelligently designed laws. I question whether they fully understand what is happening among children. As for those children who have already started the process, I'm not sure how a ban will affect them.
That we are even discussing the need to have to ban giving children cross-sex hormones and mutilating surgery is an indication we are now Rome before the fall. There are several forces attacking children and this includes those evangelists for population control (sterilize the next generation), pedophiles who want removed the age of consent and want to create more disturbed minors and eventual adults with no boundaries, a depressing number of parents with Munchausen by Proxy, and a Progressive political movement purposefully destabilizing society (T cult and CRT). Mengele is rejoicing in his watery grave.
The self-regulation processes of the medical industry have failed on this issue. Ideally the medical organizations would be promulgating and enforcing guardrails, etc., but they are doing the opposite. Malpractice lawsuits will largely fail, and profit-seeking providers won’t be discouraged by those. Corinna Cohn argues that legislation is the only tool left.
Yes, of course we’ll get that bifurcation among states, such as California being a “sanctuary” state. But such legislation would at the very least put sand in the gears, prevent some children from transitioning, and provide opportunities for more public debate.
Of course too many Democrats will dismiss it as bigotry, but if more media outlets deviate from the propaganda, some will think twice. Bottom line: yes, I support such legislation because the potential benefits outweigh the potential harms.
I hope more Democrats will see the light. This issue will hurt them in coming elections, unless they see how harmful “ gender affirmation “ and the ideology behind it really is! The biggest problem is the billions that prop up this harmful ideology..
How about Black Democrats? . It seems that 66% of Blacks people believe that sex is determined at birth , so if there is a Black Democrat running for office, would there be some hope ? Still hoping…😄
With the sole exception of Joe Manchin, EVERY Democrat in the House and Senate is on record as supporting instantaneous gender self-ID, which would become federal law under the Equality Act, which they have all voted for. (Manchine says he wants unspecified changes before supporting it.)
- I realise the reason for pushing child transition is because they might have a better chance of "passing", but the risk of waiting and "not passing" is far outweighed by the greater risk of making a terrible mistake
and:
- even if a teenager understands the biological implications of what they are about to do, few will be able to comprehend the emotional effects later - how they will feel about things when they are 20, 30, 40, etc. A teenager hasn't got the life experience and maturity to foresee this.
Not from the US so I probably shouldn't be commenting on how your legislation works, but I agree with MarkS that it should be banned everywhere.
I strongly support such bills fòr the safety of children. I regret that Transactivists have necessitated this drastic law but safe jurisdictions are needed. Living in Canada, I can only dream of such safety.
It's strange that this discussion is framed in terms of 'banning' something. In other contexts, it isn't framed like that. For instance, we don't talk of banning 15 year-olds from having sex. We say that the age of consent is 16. We don't talk of banning 17 year olds from buying alcohol or getting tattoos
I wonder if the framing of this is more likely to polarise people.
I'd agree with you, Casper, if this were a Harris poll, but this is Eliza wanting to know if her readers support "banning" (because that is what is actually going on in Red states).
I was coming here to just drop a pithy "Why would ANYONE on EM's substack oppose them???" Like, just couldn't think of a reason. But then saw Daniel's comment and remembered the inevitable worry about the law and "bodily autonomy" in the name of "healthcare."
But this is not healthcare, it's literally (lolol) harming healthy bodies. And those bodies are not autonomous, nor should they be, because they are children. (Even though I am pro-choice and trained as an attorney, I've never been comfortable with the effort to allow minors to get abortions without parental consent *because* it's rooted in this falsehood that children's/teen's minds are capable of making truly informed rest-of-their-lives decisions.) We ban or require all KINDS of things for children because they're children. The idea that *this* thing is different... Nah.
In fact, *this* thing is problematic for even more reasons. Not the least of which is there are no "trans children." NO ONE IS BORN IN THE WRONG BODY. The fact that some adults tell us they always "felt like a boy/girl" and *sincerely believed* they were one or the other (or both or neither, *very large eye roll*) doesn't mean body dysphoria/dysmorphia or just gender nonconformity (including homosexual attraction) should be "treated" in ANYONE, but especially not in children. (There is no good argument for not "treating" this problem - to the extent that it even is a real problem - with cognitive behavioral therapy or just "radical acceptance.")
Do I wish Republicans would do the banning in a more thoughtful and neutral (less politically overblown rhetoric) way? Absolutely, but I'd much rather have it banned outright and everywhere than have any child - including those currently being harmed by having their and their parents' delusions acquiesced to - be harmed (physically with the "medical" interventions themselves, and psychologically/emotionally by affirming this completely false ideology about what gender and sex are).
I support bills banning "transition" of minors, because the children are told they can change sex, which is a lie. However, the politicians too often use religious grounds, when the science is there to prove that the long term outcomes are not positive. In fact, they shorten these kids' lives.
Politics is downstream from culture, which is to say, if our culture weren't off the friggin' rails right now, we wouldn't need to pass these laws. It's disappointing and frightening that the medical establishment at large has adopted this bogus nonsense as "healthcare". Puberty isn't optional -- the idea that any person with a medical degree could believe this (or incentivized to act as if he believes it) is, frankly, astonishing. But I guess people can believe anything, especially when there are financial carrots (it's a money maker) and reputational sticks (only bigots refuse to provide this "care").
So I'm grateful for the bans, as they might truly save some kids from the harm of puberty blockers and early surgeries. And they just might allow room for providers to resume their proper role as professionals who look at the evidence rather than follow the activism. If anyone can lead a mea culpa movement back to sanity, it's doctors. They could come forward and admit they got bamboozled/pressured to provide services that they now realize are not justified either by the existing evidence or by common sense.
But these bans might also radicalize some parents (and providers), who come to see this issue as a kind of moral crusade. As Helen Joyce has noted, the all-in attitude of these parents is a defense mechanism, as it would be shattering to admit that you irreversibly damaged your own child (or for providers, many children).
Also, it sets an ominous precedent, because I really would prefer that legislators weren't in the business of deciding what is ethical -- the state has no business, in my opinion, regulating abortion or contraception, but the same legislators who claim the moral high ground on this issue (which I happen to share) are happy to say that they are mitigating harm when they pass abortion bans, etc.
I support bills that ban puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries for trans-identifying minors. I also support bills that require schools and other youth-oriented organizations to notify parents/guardians if a minor wants a pronoun change.
I support them because I feel it's an unfair responsibility to place on children to saddle them with lifelong consequences of decisions they make before they're old enough to vote.
The regulatory authorities in the UK and North America are not equipped to deal with poor practice. If they accept WPATH guidelines as "international best practice", they have no basis for sanctioning the doctors and psychologists who push children towards mutilation, sterility and lifelong medicalisation.
If you recall the Keira Bell case in England, the initial judgement was that a child under 16 could not consent to life-changing procedures; that was overturned in the Court of Appeal, where it was said that the decision was not for the courts, but should be made between doctor and patient. Unfortunately, it is always easy to find a professional stupid, zealous or greedy enough to agree to whatever the patient or parents want. There is some hope that litigation in the USA will help reverse the trend there, but it seems to be made difficult by statutes of limitations, and there are a lot of financial interests pushing the other way.
You seem to be conflicted much as I am (see above comment) but reluctantly welcome legal restrictions because they will at least mitigate the harm that is currently being done. A fair argument. But that does not really address the broader problem that you identify -- the culture has gone off the rails.
In the long run, that’s the problem that needs to be addressed. It does not get resolved through legal quick fixes.
I prefer the approach taken in Florida, in which the state Board of Health held hearings, and then voted to ban medical transition for minors. It is not covered by Medicaid there, or in ten other states. It's not medicine, it's hokum.
I support them. Common law has been inadequate in dealing with the wrongful use of medication and surgery, so legislative sledgehammer have to be brought in. Here in the UK (I don't know enough about other jurisdictions to speak with any confidence), transsexual surgeries were allowed to happen in defiance of the common-law rule that a person csnnot consent to some types of harm, such as removal of tissue for psychiatric illness such as dysphoria/dysmorphia (i.e. a person can't consent to having an arm or leg amputated because it "felt wrong"). Any surgeon doing so is at risk of prosecution for grievous bodily harm... unless they are lopping off primary and/or secondary sexual characteristics. However, despite this judge-made law being clear, like any other common-law rule it can be changed overnight, with no public debate, by a panel of Supreme Court judges. We need legislation here to cement the existing rule, and close the lacunae that have been carved out for gender treatments. The places that are producing such legislation are much to be admired.
The "amputee-identified" thing highlights the insanity of this ideology so well. We (society) would never entertain the notion that perfectly healthy limbs be removed because someone had a sincerely held belief (aka, delusion) that she was born without legs. But the sex organs and GENDER? So special, so mysterious, so innate, an IDENTITY not a delusion!
Sadly , some doctors do perform amputations in healthy limbs for people who claim they can only be” whole” without them! ( See” Better Than Well” by Carl Elliott) those people are clearly considered mentally ill and most doctors refuse to do such amputations.as they’re illegal.
Not so with gender amputations , though! They also should be illegal! The “ trans people are just as mentally ill , but sadly accepted now.
Yes. I can only talk of the jurisdictions I know best, but I have heard that it happens. Mental health care has been (re-)stigmatised to such an extent that it is now secondary to physical intervention. Its a modern, industrialised version of flagellation for "bad" thoughts.
I know. It would make more sense (not good sense, but more explicable) if removal of healthy limbs was allowed but amputation of sexual characteristics wasn't, especially in light of cases all over Europe in which e.g. involuntary contraception for severely learning disadvantaged people (who, by definition, couldn't give consent) has been found unlawful despite the risks of pregnancy being very significant. These same courts are now allowing children who cannot know what they are losing, *but will in the future*, to be permanently sterilised. Parliaments are looking on as if nothing of worth is being lost. It is so frustrating!
Another really important point b/c with the tremendous overlap b/w autism spectrum disorder and "trans," we (society) *are* permanently sterilizing children with cognitive disabilities.
Indeed. It is eugenics, whether intentional or not. Neurodivergent and LGB people are being permanently removed from the gene-pool at a time when it has never been easier to be included in it.
I think the way someone might answer this question depends greatly on what precise part of the policy they get to control.
If you live in a country where the schools tell kids they might be born in the wrong body - and gender clinics provide procedures with little accountability. As a policy maker if you have no control over the schools or medical practice but you have the ability to ban these interventions - then that might be a very tempting path.
If alternatively you live in a country where schools do not indulge in these practices and the health system is well funded and takes an evidence based approach which strongly leans toward "first do no harm" - then you might view a change in medical practice as a preferable path to ending pediatric transition.
I understand where you are coming from, David, but I disagree based on the evidence we have now. Medical and surgical procedures for the mental illnesses covered by the term "gender dysphoria" have been going on in even the most evidence-based countries, despite there being absolutely no good quality evidence for treating them any differently than other dysphorias. The medical profession has shown itself to be incapable of regulating itself, and so needs the heavy hand of legislation to state clearly that these procedures are (at least) exceptional and need oversight from other professions. It isn't commonly known that lobotomies aren't actually illegal in England and Wales, for example - they just need the consent of the patient, opinions of independent psychiatrists and social workers, and finally permission from a judge. I'd be reasonably happy with that solution for trans if we can't get an outright ban (though that's what I'd like to see, especially for children and young people).
Thanks for the reply. I actually don't have a strong view.
I understand the desire to prohibit these interventions, but it is a desperate measure that only makes sense if medical practice has run off the rails. Which it has.
Absolutely. It's not something I would ordinarily support, but every now and again medical practitioners need to be reminded that they are not above the law.
I strongly support bills banning pharmaceutical and surgical interventions for "trans"-identifying minors (under 18).
My reason is that there is NO DIAGNOSTIC METHODOLOGY (including any form of psychological evaluation) for determining which people will persist and which will desist in their gender dysphoria. Various studies show that the desistance rate is very high (~85%) in those treated with "watchful waiting", and absolutely no one has any idea how to distinguish these future desisters from future persisters.
Given this, performing irreversible medical physiological alterations (including blockers) on this population is nothing short of A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY.
There is simply nothing comparable to this in medical practice that has not later come to be regarded as a horrific scandal (eg lobotomies).
We the people in the US have been completely and utterly failed by our medical community on this. Other countries (UK, Sweden Finland, Norway) are doing much better, but what is needed is an ABSOLUTE AND TOTAL BAN on these physiology destroying procedures on minors, worldwide.
As a 67-year-old lifelong Democrat voter (until 2022) and activist, I applaud the red-state legislatures that have bravely enacted such bans in the face of massive disinformation from the captured ideologues of our sadly destructive medical community.
I’m conflicted. As a general principle, I think direct legislative interventions in medical matters set a bad precedent. But what is happening is so horrific I wonder if it might be warranted.
But there are other ways to approach the matter short of outright bans. Certainly, the statute of limitations should be much longer. Perhaps regulating the terms for giving consent, and transparency about the risks.
I don’t think passing laws alone will solve the problem. Red states can ban it, and blue states can become “sanctuary” states. Ultimately, there needs to be a broad shift in public consciousness.
On the one hand, I am encouraged that opposition is growing and the debate is shifting, however slightly. On the other, gender ideology is so deeply entrenched now that it is hard to foresee how this ends well.
I am glad that red states are acting and support the bans. Medical ethics demands that doctors” do no harm”. Kids are being experimented on , and it must be stopped. I can no longer vote for any Democrats who support gender ideology.
ALL Democrats support gender ideology, which is why I now vote only for Republicans.
I don’t like the Republicans’ stand on guns ,so I may just not vote at all.I am appalled at the Democrats’ support of the gender cult, so it’s really hard to know what I’ll do.
I think that MarkS says it pretty well. The truth is, the trans life isn't a particularly happy life, so children should not be encouraged in that direction. Given that being trans is now a fad, allowing children to "transition" (I put it in quotes because it isn't really possible) just means that children will be transitioning who are not really trans at all, and those children must be protected. Bottom line: Children don't have the emotional maturity to make such decisions, which must be left to the adult yet to come.
My only concern is that the Republicans, in their haste, may not pass the most intelligently designed laws. I question whether they fully understand what is happening among children. As for those children who have already started the process, I'm not sure how a ban will affect them.
That we are even discussing the need to have to ban giving children cross-sex hormones and mutilating surgery is an indication we are now Rome before the fall. There are several forces attacking children and this includes those evangelists for population control (sterilize the next generation), pedophiles who want removed the age of consent and want to create more disturbed minors and eventual adults with no boundaries, a depressing number of parents with Munchausen by Proxy, and a Progressive political movement purposefully destabilizing society (T cult and CRT). Mengele is rejoicing in his watery grave.
It’s very sad!
The self-regulation processes of the medical industry have failed on this issue. Ideally the medical organizations would be promulgating and enforcing guardrails, etc., but they are doing the opposite. Malpractice lawsuits will largely fail, and profit-seeking providers won’t be discouraged by those. Corinna Cohn argues that legislation is the only tool left.
Yes, of course we’ll get that bifurcation among states, such as California being a “sanctuary” state. But such legislation would at the very least put sand in the gears, prevent some children from transitioning, and provide opportunities for more public debate.
Of course too many Democrats will dismiss it as bigotry, but if more media outlets deviate from the propaganda, some will think twice. Bottom line: yes, I support such legislation because the potential benefits outweigh the potential harms.
I hope more Democrats will see the light. This issue will hurt them in coming elections, unless they see how harmful “ gender affirmation “ and the ideology behind it really is! The biggest problem is the billions that prop up this harmful ideology..
There is not even ONE Democrat who has “seen the light”.
How about Black Democrats? . It seems that 66% of Blacks people believe that sex is determined at birth , so if there is a Black Democrat running for office, would there be some hope ? Still hoping…😄
With the sole exception of Joe Manchin, EVERY Democrat in the House and Senate is on record as supporting instantaneous gender self-ID, which would become federal law under the Equality Act, which they have all voted for. (Manchine says he wants unspecified changes before supporting it.)
What everyone else has said, plus:
- I realise the reason for pushing child transition is because they might have a better chance of "passing", but the risk of waiting and "not passing" is far outweighed by the greater risk of making a terrible mistake
and:
- even if a teenager understands the biological implications of what they are about to do, few will be able to comprehend the emotional effects later - how they will feel about things when they are 20, 30, 40, etc. A teenager hasn't got the life experience and maturity to foresee this.
Not from the US so I probably shouldn't be commenting on how your legislation works, but I agree with MarkS that it should be banned everywhere.
I strongly support such bills fòr the safety of children. I regret that Transactivists have necessitated this drastic law but safe jurisdictions are needed. Living in Canada, I can only dream of such safety.
I support such bills. We now know that the so-called "Dutch Protocol"was based upon flawed research.
Excellent and very thoughtful comments here
I would just add a minor observation:
It's strange that this discussion is framed in terms of 'banning' something. In other contexts, it isn't framed like that. For instance, we don't talk of banning 15 year-olds from having sex. We say that the age of consent is 16. We don't talk of banning 17 year olds from buying alcohol or getting tattoos
I wonder if the framing of this is more likely to polarise people.
I'd agree with you, Casper, if this were a Harris poll, but this is Eliza wanting to know if her readers support "banning" (because that is what is actually going on in Red states).
Just to add : I'm not blaming Eliza for the framing (heaven forbid..). It's just the way the issue is usually put.
I was coming here to just drop a pithy "Why would ANYONE on EM's substack oppose them???" Like, just couldn't think of a reason. But then saw Daniel's comment and remembered the inevitable worry about the law and "bodily autonomy" in the name of "healthcare."
But this is not healthcare, it's literally (lolol) harming healthy bodies. And those bodies are not autonomous, nor should they be, because they are children. (Even though I am pro-choice and trained as an attorney, I've never been comfortable with the effort to allow minors to get abortions without parental consent *because* it's rooted in this falsehood that children's/teen's minds are capable of making truly informed rest-of-their-lives decisions.) We ban or require all KINDS of things for children because they're children. The idea that *this* thing is different... Nah.
In fact, *this* thing is problematic for even more reasons. Not the least of which is there are no "trans children." NO ONE IS BORN IN THE WRONG BODY. The fact that some adults tell us they always "felt like a boy/girl" and *sincerely believed* they were one or the other (or both or neither, *very large eye roll*) doesn't mean body dysphoria/dysmorphia or just gender nonconformity (including homosexual attraction) should be "treated" in ANYONE, but especially not in children. (There is no good argument for not "treating" this problem - to the extent that it even is a real problem - with cognitive behavioral therapy or just "radical acceptance.")
Do I wish Republicans would do the banning in a more thoughtful and neutral (less politically overblown rhetoric) way? Absolutely, but I'd much rather have it banned outright and everywhere than have any child - including those currently being harmed by having their and their parents' delusions acquiesced to - be harmed (physically with the "medical" interventions themselves, and psychologically/emotionally by affirming this completely false ideology about what gender and sex are).
I support bills banning "transition" of minors, because the children are told they can change sex, which is a lie. However, the politicians too often use religious grounds, when the science is there to prove that the long term outcomes are not positive. In fact, they shorten these kids' lives.
Politics is downstream from culture, which is to say, if our culture weren't off the friggin' rails right now, we wouldn't need to pass these laws. It's disappointing and frightening that the medical establishment at large has adopted this bogus nonsense as "healthcare". Puberty isn't optional -- the idea that any person with a medical degree could believe this (or incentivized to act as if he believes it) is, frankly, astonishing. But I guess people can believe anything, especially when there are financial carrots (it's a money maker) and reputational sticks (only bigots refuse to provide this "care").
So I'm grateful for the bans, as they might truly save some kids from the harm of puberty blockers and early surgeries. And they just might allow room for providers to resume their proper role as professionals who look at the evidence rather than follow the activism. If anyone can lead a mea culpa movement back to sanity, it's doctors. They could come forward and admit they got bamboozled/pressured to provide services that they now realize are not justified either by the existing evidence or by common sense.
But these bans might also radicalize some parents (and providers), who come to see this issue as a kind of moral crusade. As Helen Joyce has noted, the all-in attitude of these parents is a defense mechanism, as it would be shattering to admit that you irreversibly damaged your own child (or for providers, many children).
Also, it sets an ominous precedent, because I really would prefer that legislators weren't in the business of deciding what is ethical -- the state has no business, in my opinion, regulating abortion or contraception, but the same legislators who claim the moral high ground on this issue (which I happen to share) are happy to say that they are mitigating harm when they pass abortion bans, etc.
Comment below meant as a response to your post
I support bills that ban puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries for trans-identifying minors. I also support bills that require schools and other youth-oriented organizations to notify parents/guardians if a minor wants a pronoun change.
I support them because I feel it's an unfair responsibility to place on children to saddle them with lifelong consequences of decisions they make before they're old enough to vote.
The regulatory authorities in the UK and North America are not equipped to deal with poor practice. If they accept WPATH guidelines as "international best practice", they have no basis for sanctioning the doctors and psychologists who push children towards mutilation, sterility and lifelong medicalisation.
If you recall the Keira Bell case in England, the initial judgement was that a child under 16 could not consent to life-changing procedures; that was overturned in the Court of Appeal, where it was said that the decision was not for the courts, but should be made between doctor and patient. Unfortunately, it is always easy to find a professional stupid, zealous or greedy enough to agree to whatever the patient or parents want. There is some hope that litigation in the USA will help reverse the trend there, but it seems to be made difficult by statutes of limitations, and there are a lot of financial interests pushing the other way.
You seem to be conflicted much as I am (see above comment) but reluctantly welcome legal restrictions because they will at least mitigate the harm that is currently being done. A fair argument. But that does not really address the broader problem that you identify -- the culture has gone off the rails.
In the long run, that’s the problem that needs to be addressed. It does not get resolved through legal quick fixes.
I prefer the approach taken in Florida, in which the state Board of Health held hearings, and then voted to ban medical transition for minors. It is not covered by Medicaid there, or in ten other states. It's not medicine, it's hokum.
I support banning so-called” gender affirmation “ ( a euphemism for child abuse) . I’m sorry it’s just the red states .
I support them. Common law has been inadequate in dealing with the wrongful use of medication and surgery, so legislative sledgehammer have to be brought in. Here in the UK (I don't know enough about other jurisdictions to speak with any confidence), transsexual surgeries were allowed to happen in defiance of the common-law rule that a person csnnot consent to some types of harm, such as removal of tissue for psychiatric illness such as dysphoria/dysmorphia (i.e. a person can't consent to having an arm or leg amputated because it "felt wrong"). Any surgeon doing so is at risk of prosecution for grievous bodily harm... unless they are lopping off primary and/or secondary sexual characteristics. However, despite this judge-made law being clear, like any other common-law rule it can be changed overnight, with no public debate, by a panel of Supreme Court judges. We need legislation here to cement the existing rule, and close the lacunae that have been carved out for gender treatments. The places that are producing such legislation are much to be admired.
The "amputee-identified" thing highlights the insanity of this ideology so well. We (society) would never entertain the notion that perfectly healthy limbs be removed because someone had a sincerely held belief (aka, delusion) that she was born without legs. But the sex organs and GENDER? So special, so mysterious, so innate, an IDENTITY not a delusion!
Sadly , some doctors do perform amputations in healthy limbs for people who claim they can only be” whole” without them! ( See” Better Than Well” by Carl Elliott) those people are clearly considered mentally ill and most doctors refuse to do such amputations.as they’re illegal.
Not so with gender amputations , though! They also should be illegal! The “ trans people are just as mentally ill , but sadly accepted now.
Yes. I can only talk of the jurisdictions I know best, but I have heard that it happens. Mental health care has been (re-)stigmatised to such an extent that it is now secondary to physical intervention. Its a modern, industrialised version of flagellation for "bad" thoughts.
I know. It would make more sense (not good sense, but more explicable) if removal of healthy limbs was allowed but amputation of sexual characteristics wasn't, especially in light of cases all over Europe in which e.g. involuntary contraception for severely learning disadvantaged people (who, by definition, couldn't give consent) has been found unlawful despite the risks of pregnancy being very significant. These same courts are now allowing children who cannot know what they are losing, *but will in the future*, to be permanently sterilised. Parliaments are looking on as if nothing of worth is being lost. It is so frustrating!
Another really important point b/c with the tremendous overlap b/w autism spectrum disorder and "trans," we (society) *are* permanently sterilizing children with cognitive disabilities.
Indeed. It is eugenics, whether intentional or not. Neurodivergent and LGB people are being permanently removed from the gene-pool at a time when it has never been easier to be included in it.
As an L, that has been one of the things that terrifies me the most about this insanity.
I'm so sorry. I will fight as hard as I can to end this horror. It has to be stopped.
Of course I support them. Child abuse should always be illegal. Why make an exception for this form of it?
I think the way someone might answer this question depends greatly on what precise part of the policy they get to control.
If you live in a country where the schools tell kids they might be born in the wrong body - and gender clinics provide procedures with little accountability. As a policy maker if you have no control over the schools or medical practice but you have the ability to ban these interventions - then that might be a very tempting path.
If alternatively you live in a country where schools do not indulge in these practices and the health system is well funded and takes an evidence based approach which strongly leans toward "first do no harm" - then you might view a change in medical practice as a preferable path to ending pediatric transition.
I understand where you are coming from, David, but I disagree based on the evidence we have now. Medical and surgical procedures for the mental illnesses covered by the term "gender dysphoria" have been going on in even the most evidence-based countries, despite there being absolutely no good quality evidence for treating them any differently than other dysphorias. The medical profession has shown itself to be incapable of regulating itself, and so needs the heavy hand of legislation to state clearly that these procedures are (at least) exceptional and need oversight from other professions. It isn't commonly known that lobotomies aren't actually illegal in England and Wales, for example - they just need the consent of the patient, opinions of independent psychiatrists and social workers, and finally permission from a judge. I'd be reasonably happy with that solution for trans if we can't get an outright ban (though that's what I'd like to see, especially for children and young people).
Thanks for the reply. I actually don't have a strong view.
I understand the desire to prohibit these interventions, but it is a desperate measure that only makes sense if medical practice has run off the rails. Which it has.
Absolutely. It's not something I would ordinarily support, but every now and again medical practitioners need to be reminded that they are not above the law.