• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Biden says efforts to restrict transgender rights ‘close to sinful’

Yeah, I gave up replying to him when he brushed off the meta analysis I cited that included 27 studies with nearly 8,000 participants.


It isn't. In fact it even talks about many of the issues we have all been trying to explain to you in this thread. Maybe you should read your own article.


All the article brings up to your point is that there is a lack of evidence in some areas of gender affirming care. Specifically they discuss long term effects of puberty blockers have not been studied in detail. That doesn't refute any of the arguments we have been making here. It doesn't discount the importance of affirming trans identities for minors and providing them medical care. All the evidence we do have suggests that even the worst possible effects of puberty blockers are a much better outcome that the effects of denying that care to trans youth. That article cites no contradictory data to my claims because there is none. There is a lack of long term studies in certain areas, but that isn't the same thing as data existing that backs up anything you've said in this thread.

Proof allegedly buried in some long article somewhere.
 

“She does not argue that puberty blockers are never appropriate. Instead, she urges a cautious exploratory approach to gender distress based upon her decades of experience,”

This is not the direction the GOP is taking us, or what the anti-transgender crowd is arguing for here.
 
With the number of diagnoses soaring, the medical community faces the dilemma of weighing precaution against the risks associated with not offering treatment to those suffering from "gender dysphoria".

Sweden decided in February 2022 to halt hormone therapy for minors except in very rare cases, and in December, the National Board of Health and Welfare said mastectomies for teenage girls wanting to transition should be limited to a research setting.

"The uncertain state of knowledge calls for caution," Board department head Thomas Linden said in a statement in December.
 
Norway allows parents/doctors to perform sex change/intervention surgeries on infants who are intersexed, without any input at all from the child.
There is a difference between performing surgery to correct an abnormality or birth defect, versus performing elective surgery on a healthy body because the patient wants to look different, before the patient is old enough to consent.
 
There is a difference between performing surgery to correct an abnormality or birth defect, versus performing elective surgery on a healthy body because the patient wants to look different, before the patient is old enough to consent.
Even cosmetic intersexed surgery, surgery that is not medically necessary, is allowed. That is still elective surgery on a healthy body, being performed on a person that doesn't even get a choice at all, any say.
 
Even cosmetic intersexed surgery, surgery that is not medically necessary, is allowed. That is still elective surgery on a healthy body, being performed on a person that doesn't even get a choice at all, any say.
Should we ban that surgery? Should we allow parents to get trans durfery for their kids when they are 5? Should parents have that choice if a doctor allows it?
 
before the patient is old enough to consent.
The mature minor doctrine is a rule of law found in the United States and Canada accepting that an unemancipated minor patient may possess the maturity to choose or reject a particular health care treatment, sometimes without the knowledge or agreement of parents, and should be permitted to do so.
By definition, a "mature minor" has been found to have the capacity for decisional autonomy, or the right to make decisions including whether to undergo risky medical but potentially life-saving medical decisions alone, without parental approval
Several states permit minors to legally consent to medical treatment without parental consent or over parental objections.[25] In addition, many other states allow minors to consent to medical procedures under a more limited set of circumstances. These include providing limited minor autonomy only in enumerated cases, such as blood donation, substance abuse, sexual and reproductive health (including abortion and sexually transmitted infections), or for emergency medical services. Many states also exempt specific groups of minors from parental consent, such as homeless youth, emancipated minors, minor parents, or married minors.
 
Should we ban that surgery? Should we allow parents to get trans durfery for their kids when they are 5? Should parents have that choice if a doctor allows it?
Yes, at least until a person is able to have any say. But parents have the choice now for the surgery I'm talking about. It is even an exception made in most if not all those laws preventing the surgery for others.

When are children legally allowed to make medical decisions on their own? Most states allow for minors to consent to some forms of medical care given certain circumstances, and normally based around teenage years.


Funny how these laws recognize that teenagers can in fact make some medical decisions for themselves.
 
Yes, at least until a person is able to have any say. But parents have the choice now for the surgery I'm talking about. It is even an exception made in most if not all those laws preventing the surgery for others.

When are children legally allowed to make medical decisions on their own? Most states allow for minors to consent to some forms of medical care given certain circumstances, and normally based around teenage years.


Funny how these laws recognize that teenagers can in fact make some medical decisions for themselves.
Not in Utah and several other states and countries for trans. They can't consent to conversion therapy either
 
Not in Utah and several other states and countries for trans. They can't consent to conversion therapy either
Conversion therapy is outlawed in most states due to its being proven to be damaging. It is not real medical care, at all.

The Utah bill specifically makes exception for "disorders of sexual development", in other words, simply being diagnosed as intersexed.

 
Last edited:
Conversion therapy is outlawed in most states due to its being proven to be damaging. It is not real medical care, at all.
Like trans treatment for kids


Pump the brakes and do the research
 
Like trans treatment for kids


Pump the brakes and do the research
It has been done. It helps far more than it harms. This has been shown in several studies.

Many different professional medical, pediatric medical organizations recommend gender affirming care for treatment of gender disorder, for those who are transgender as well. This is very different than conversion therapy, where these same organizations recommend that it be outlawed, show evidence of it being harmful.
 
Not just me....finland, Sweden, Norway, the UK and some American states. Lol
You just totally gave up on arguing about data and seem to have decided to simply point towards governments who have made political decisions you agree with as an argument.

Disappointing.
 
It has been done. It helps far more than it harms. This has been shown in several studies.

Many different professional medical, pediatric medical organizations recommend gender affirming care for treatment of gender disorder, for those who are transgender as well. This is very different than conversion therapy, where these same organizations recommend that it be outlawed, show evidence of it being harmful.
Norway, finland, Sweden, the UK and several states disagree with your assessment of the research
 
You just totally gave up on arguing about data and seem to have decided to simply point towards governments who have made political decisions you agree with as an argument.

Disappointing.
Those countries have seen the data too.


You CLAIM it's a political opinion


I CLAIM you have a political opinion here



Claims are easy. Lol
 
Not just me....finland, Sweden, Norway, the UK and some American states. Lol
You just totally gave up on arguing about data and seem to have decided to simply point towards governments who have made political decisions you agree with as an argument.

Disappointing.
Here look, I can just vaguely wave my hands at government who agree with me to back up my arguments too!

Wow, this is so much easier. I don't even have to think about my positions or arguments. Nor can you directly attack my positions because instead of standing for anything I believe in I'm offloading my argument to a third party! No wonder you keep falling back to this tactic.

How long do you want to post decisions made by government back and forth at each other until we go back to arguing based on data?
 
Norway, finland, Sweden, the UK and several states disagree with your assessment of the research
UK only took measures to make it more difficult to get care outside of the medical system, which is not something I'm against.


There should be a system to ensure that they are receiving proper care, and that it is done under properly supervised healthcare professionals. Most people don't have an issue with that, particularly for anything that would require doctor prescriptions or recommendations. That is not what gender affirming care is in its totality though. You can simply live as that gender and be under gender affirming care, which is being outlawed to even go that far in many states. Those countries are not doing that.
 
Here look, I can just vaguely wave my hands at government who agree with me to back up my arguments too!

Wow, this is so much easier. I don't even have to think about my positions or arguments. Nor can you directly attack my positions because instead of standing for anything I believe in I'm offloading my argument to a third party! No wonder you keep falling back to this tactic.

How long do you want to post decisions made by government back and forth at each other until we go back to arguing based on data?
The data is sparce. Deny that

 
UK only took measures to make it more difficult to get care outside of the medical system, which is not something I'm against.

I support these pull backs
 
The data is sparce. Deny that

You didn't even post a study. You posted a study that is as far as I can tell, in progress, and has no results yet?

The data we do have backs up the affirmative care model.
 
I support these pull backs
Good for you.

I don't support all of them. I do support some of what they have done, such as the UK. I do not support things like what Florida or Texas have done, not only forcing children to not be able to socially transition, but also threatening to take custody away, charge parents with abuse for just that.
 
Back
Top Bottom