Trump team to stop family-planning funding as it reviews whether it’s being used for DEI programs

The issue is this:

The funding of organisations like PP is under scrutiny for DEI reasons.

One of those DEI reasons could be their rampant gender treatments.

Some people have denied that organisations like PP give gender treatments to children.

Some people have denied PP see any children at all.

You are one of those people.

I have pointed out that PP treat children - and humans aged 12-16 are children by anyone sensible’s definition - for both gender and non-gender reasons.

You don’t seem to accept this.

To the rest of us, there is an ethical and moral dilemma between stopping PP from harming children through their gender treatments and allowing them to continue to provide much needed women’s healthcare.

This is not an ethical or moral dilemma to anyone who denies PP are even seeing children, let alone treating children with puberty blockers and CSH.

I am not “trying to catch you out”. I have pointed out how you have caught yourself out, by denying children are seen and then writing yourself that it’s important they provide information to the children they see.

You’re being contrary, for reasons known only to you. I’m glad you will no longer reply because the rest of us can get back to the discussion as to how the conflict between harming children and providing women’s services can be resolved, without your perpetual lying with denying they even see children at all.

I’m no longer replying to you. I’ve decided you’re not in this discussion for helpful reasons. You simply want to catch me out - why? I said before I do think PBs shouldn’t be given to those under 16, so we supposedly agree there. What’s the issue exactly?

You’re making absolutely zero sense now. Are you saying that to you, humans aged 12-16 are not children and you’re only using the world children to describe humans this age to appease my definition of children?

You don’t think humans this age are children?

If I didn’t say “children” in my reply to you, I’d be attacked for that too. Can’t win either way, so I chose the path of least resistance.

what is your agenda?

I don’t have an “agenda”. I told you why I brought it up in my post above.

I am pointing out how the Trump administration might add genderwoo services as another justification for their attacks. Why has that been so difficult to understand over the last 26 pages?

You still seem to find it difficult to understand this.

Genderwoo is not funded by Title X. Title X funding is specific to women's reproductive services.

Genderwoo is not meant to be funded by the money allocated for Title X. But the concern raised about PP is how they have had a massive uptick in what they call “other services”, which is genderwoo, and whether their funding is being inappropriately allocated to that. That’s what’s being investigated:

https://www.help.senate.gov/rep/newsroom/press/ranking-member-cassidy-calls-out-planned-parenthoods-opaque-reporting-and-questions-its-use-of-taxpayer-dollars-to-fund-gender-transition-services

They provide puberty blockers as children enter puberty: There is range of ages for this. I did write before puberty must have begun before it can be suppressed. This is also not done without parental/guardian approval.

So they see children at these ranges of ages then, don’t they.

They give guidance and information for children aged 12-16 if they attend PP for other treatments: indeed they do and they should?

So children aged 12-16 attend PP for other treatment then, don’t they.

Why are you agreeing with me while claiming children don’t attend PP? Weird.

Genderwoo is not funded by Title X. Title X funding is specific to women's reproductive services.

Once again I ask, why do you keep conflating cuts to women's services with genderwoo @NotBadConsidering? If you're not defending the cuts, what is your agenda?

I’m aware of all of the above, but it is clear you are putting your own interpretation on the material.

1. They provide puberty blockers as children enter puberty: There is range of ages for this. I did write before puberty must have begun before it can be suppressed. This is also not done without parental/guardian approval.
2. They give guidance and information for children aged 12-16 if they attend PP for other treatments: indeed they do and they should?

I don’t know why you would but you are. I provided direct examples from PP websites that informs that they provide puberty blockers as children enter puberty, and they give guidance and information for children aged 12-16 as to how they are handled if they come to their service without parent for other treatments.

I don’t know why you are persisting in lying about PP treating children, but you are.

It doesn’t matter if there are 20 smaller women’s health providers not providing genderwoo care if there’s one big provider of women’s care providing millions of dollars worth of genderwoo care.

Yes it does. It matters to women. The cut proposed to PP is 1/6 of the cuts. The other 5/6 of cuts are hitting other providers of women's services. And not just 20 providers. 4000 of them.

The freeze to the Title X program could impact as much as $120 million worth of grants to a network of roughly 4,000 clinics providing free and discounted pregnancy testing, contraception, sexually transmitted infection (STI) testing and treatment, and evaluations and testing for infertility.

The cuts are to women services because they serve women. They are not genderwoo cuts.

Why would I lie? I’ve got no reason to.

This is disgusting. To say such things against other women in an attempt to stop them speaking is shameful.

Are you calling me one of these people?

PP do not offer services to actual children

Please stop lying.

In the context TooBad was using it - asking why PP was saying something on their website about teenagers - it was incorrect and confusing, as PP do not offer services to actual children.

Not all of them. Not even most of them. The idea that most providers of women's services in America also provide genderwoo is nonsense that you've making up to justify(?) Trump's attack on women and cuts to women's services.

Planned Parenthood, the organisation that was quoted in the OP, who made a statement about the attack on funding in the OP, is one of the largest providers nationwide of genderwoo care. It doesn’t matter if there are 20 smaller women’s health providers not providing genderwoo care if there’s one big provider of women’s care providing millions of dollars worth of genderwoo care.

It’s not me who is justifying Trump’s attack on women and cuts to women’s services. I am not justifying it. Stop making things up. I am pointing out how the Trump administration might add genderwoo services as another justification for their attacks. Why has that been so difficult to understand over the last 26 pages?

You have admitted that you don’t think it’s morally or ethically acceptable for organisations like PP to be medically transitioning children. It was pointed out in the first few pages that organisations like PP have withstood attacks from Republicans for decades whilst solely providing women’s services, but because of genderwoo, they have opened themselves up in a different way that makes them more vulnerable to such attacks, because they’ve strayed into territory that the vast majority of the public, including you, think is unethical and immoral.

What do you mean “conflating”? It’s the women’s services that have taken on genderwoo services. It’s them that have conflated the two, as though providing one is as righteous as providing the other. Why do you keep ignoring the fact that women’s services have diversified their practice by including genderwoo services, including transitioning children?

Not all of them. Not even most of them. The idea that most providers of women's services in America also provide genderwoo is nonsense that you've making up to justify(?) Trump's attack on women and cuts to women's services.

Regardless of legalities, do you think, morally and ethically, that services that purport to be for women’s health should also be medically transitioning children?

No.

Until transitioning children is made illegal there will be providers of puberty blockers and surgeons who will operate. Children will continue to be harmed.

You keep skirting the question so I will be as explicit as possible:

Regardless of legalities, do you think, morally and ethically, that services that purport to be for women’s health should also be medically transitioning children?

Why do you keep conflating women's services with genderwoo services?

What do you mean “conflating”? It’s the women’s services that have taken on genderwoo services. It’s them that have conflated the two, as though providing one is as righteous as providing the other. Why do you keep ignoring the fact that women’s services have diversified their practice by including genderwoo services, including transitioning children?

Until transitioning children is made illegal there will be providers of puberty blockers and surgeons who will operate. Children will continue to be harmed.

Why do you keep conflating women's services with genderwoo services @NotBadConsidering?

I haven’t🤨. I pointed out at the beginning of the thread it may be a contributing factor.

Are you going to answer my questions from above?

Do you support the medical treatment of children for gender reasons with puberty blockers and CSH at a service that purporting to offer a women’s health service?

But you haven’t been clear. You acknowledge they are harming children with gender treatments? But your issue is you don’t think stopping their funding will stop this harm? I think that’s understandable, but why do you think? Do you think they’ll just carry on transitioning children anyway?

Then why are you suggesting that the cuts to women's services are the result of gender ideology @NotBadConsidering ?

I have no such idea. That’s the problem. They may have already ruined their chances when they decided to take on gender ideology years ago. They may have a chance to save their funding. It may make no difference.

All we can say is nothing good comes out of gender ideology. Not only does it directly harm people, it harms people collaterally too.

b) if they’re told it’s a major driver of the risk to their funding, will organisations like PP continue to risk women’s services due to their commitment to child transition or will they cut back on that to continue their primary goal?

Where are you getting the idea that providers of women's services under threat are being given any such choice from @NotBadConsidering?

But PP losing funding will, because they won’t be able to provide gender affirming services to children if they don’t have any funding.

Sure they will. PP is massive with funding of $1billion + per annum. They will survive a $20million cut. Not so the other, smaller providers of women's services who solely provide services to women and can't afford a freeze, nevermind a cut.