Arkansas bans puberty blockers, hormone treatments and surgery for under 18s

[bluechameleon]

Report in the Grauniad obviously presents this as a Bad Thing, but seems very sensible.
www.theguardian.com/society/2021/apr/06/arkansas-transgender-youth-gender-affirming-treatment-ban?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
It is a bit uncomfortable though to be on the same side as the American Christian Right. I'm not sure that their motivations are necessarily the same as mine.

"It is a bit uncomfortable though to be on the same side as the American Christian Right. I'm not sure that their motivations are necessarily the same as mine."

Should vegetarians be uncomfortable being 'on the same side' as Hitler? Seriously, I'm getting pissed off with this - the idea that unless someone else is 'pure' then I can have no overlap with them. It's completely fucked up.

The motivations of the American Christian Right (which I suspect will be on a spectrum of mild to extreme) are irrelevant to me. That they will protect children from irreversible harm is what counts, not their why.

this is why what they're doing is the right thing

www.persuasion.community/p/keira-bell-my-story

"At the Tavistock, practitioners provide “gender affirmative care”—in practice, this means that when children and teens declare a desire to transition, their assertions are typically accepted as conclusive. Affirmative care is being adopted as a model in many places. In 2018, the American Academy of Pediatrics released a policy statement on the treatment of young people who identify as transgender and gender diverse that advocated for “gender-affirmative care.”

But former Tavistock practitioners have cited varied problems suffered by the kids who sought help, such as sexual abuse, trauma, parental abandonment, homophobia in the family or at school, depression, anxiety, being on the autism spectrum, having ADHD. These profound issues, and how they might be tied up with feelings of dysphoria, have often been ignored in favor of making transition the all-purpose solution"

The motivations of the American Christian Right (which I suspect will be on a spectrumgrin of mild to extreme) are irrelevant to me. That they will protect children from irreversible harm is what counts, not their why.

This, 100%. I'm shocked and disgusted by the attitude of liberals and the left -- my usual allies. But I welcome whoever will stand up for women's rights and children's safety. This is too important to nitpick about other, irrelevant issues.

Arkansas gets something right for once.

One of the surprising things about the current trans trend is the way British centre-left people who normally think our NHS is one of the best things about us, were horrified by Gove's words dismissing 'experts', and hate the idea of being the 51st state of the USA, have taken on board a mindset derived from the USA, and particularly their health system, one that seems to encourage self-diagnosis and a mindset where 'the customer is always right' and given what they ask - and pay - for.

That's odd, aren't we lectured constantly by a.n.other poster that the UK is so totally out of step with the rest of the world, particularly the USA, regarding all things transgender and especially the use of puberty blockers. We were reliably informed by said poster that the Kiera Bell case and ruling was going to result in the UK being unable to do trade deals with the good ol' US of A.

I thought I'd also read that another US State has ruled that boys who identify as girls cannot compete in athletics against girls.

I was very disappointed that the BBC presented it as a negative story
bearing in mind this
www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56601386
and this
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/nhs-adviser-to-review-hormone-use-on-young-2r76bdpj7
and this
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56539466

@WhereYouLeftIt

"It is a bit uncomfortable though to be on the same side as the American Christian Right. I'm not sure that their motivations are necessarily the same as mine."

Should vegetarians be uncomfortable being 'on the same side' as Hitler? Seriously, I'm getting pissed off with this - the idea that unless someone else is 'pure' then I can have no overlap with them. It's completely fucked up.

The motivations of the American Christian Right (which I suspect will be on a spectrum of mild to extreme) are irrelevant to me. That they will protect children from irreversible harm is what counts, not their why.

'Iran carries out more sex reassignment surgeries than any other country in the world after Thailand.' (Wikipedia).

I thought I'd also read that another US State has ruled that boys who identify as girls cannot compete in athletics against girls

indeed. Four US states have already passed bills protecting women's sports and approx. 30 more have similar bills going through the process. This is good news!!

Arkansas is one of the states that has passed four bills protecting women's sports and obviously is leading the way with the medical protections for children so maybe more states will follow suit on that front as well.

www.womensliberationfront.org/womens-sports

Thanks for that link IDont.

The BBC article does appear biased. It ends with:

"Supporters of the bill, who are almost all Republican, say they want to protect children from life-changing procedures they will later regret. They also point to side-effects of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, and cite occasional cases where transgender people reverse their decision to transition.

But experts say each step is undertaken with the consultation of doctors, therapists and social workers, often over extended periods of time."

www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56657625

Silly Republicans just need to listen to the "experts" apparently.

The Guardian coverage is bonkers, presenting this as a denial of 'treatment' to children, using photos of older teenagers, blethering on about 'affirming care' for 'suicidal' young people.

No other subject has such inaccurate, biased, partisan coverage.

Has it been made clear what will be put in place to replace affirmation-only therapy? The main thing I'd worry about is removing the (harmful) approach currently used but not putting something beneficial in its place.

This was interesting in the BBC report:

The override of Governor Hutchinson's veto needed only a simple majority, but passed easily in both chambers, with the House voting 72-25 in favour and the Senate 25-8.

Two assumptions from the gender ideologists might cause them trouble. The first is that "most people support trans" will win the day, when what this means varies from issue to issue. The second is that if they appeal at a high enough level this will win the day. As has been seen in the UK, going to court can result in requests to present sound evidence and being asked awkward questions.

The issue of evidence is important. While the incurious medical "consensus" up to now has been in favour of "wholly reversible" puberty blockers meaning that medical practitioners can hide behind their insurers, does this shield fall away when there have been court proceedings suggesting that puberty blockers can cause harm?

@EveWasReframed

The Guardian coverage is bonkers, presenting this as a denial of 'treatment' to children, using photos of older teenagers, blethering on about 'affirming care' for 'suicidal' young people.

No other subject has such inaccurate, biased, partisan coverage.

The thing is, their coverage of this issue has rather led me to doubt their coverage of other issues.

The way it’s covered sounds as if these kids are denied vaccines, dental care, hospital treatment for broken limbs... it really doesn’t even consider why specific treatments are being banned for children.

And yes - it is opening eyes to coverage. There are some turds a that you just can’t polish.

@toffeebutterpopcorn

The way it’s covered sounds as if these kids are denied vaccines, dental care, hospital treatment for broken limbs... it really doesn’t even consider why specific treatments are being banned for children.

And yes - it is opening eyes to coverage. There are some turds a that you just can’t polish.

Yes, this bothered me too. Lots of celebrities are sharing it saying 'denying essential healthcare to anyone is against their human rights'.. but that's not what's happening here, is it?

The thing is, their coverage of this issue has rather led me to doubt their coverage of other issues.
Same here. The Guardian and the BBC have been my go-to news sources my whole adult life. But they have damaged my trust so badly that now I at everything they say.

@teawamutu, yeah, you're right. I'm cynical now about a lot of Guardian coverage. Still, this topic is miles away the most inaccurately covered of them all, from headline writers to content writers to editors.

Guess the Guardian took the king's shilling a while ago.

If you consistently find yourselves in agreement with the Far Right and Religious Evangelicals, it might be time to question your ideology.

Particularly since your ideology is consistently at odds with the Human Rights Campaign, ACLU and every international health organisation.

@yeahbutnaw

If you consistently find yourselves in agreement with the Far Right and Religious Evangelicals, it might be time to question your ideology.

Particularly since your ideology is consistently at odds with the Human Rights Campaign, ACLU and every international health organisation.

I don't (find myself in agreement with ...).

So that's all ok, then.

I'm actually more of a socialist tbh.

Speaking strictly for myself, I have learned the hard way not to outsource my opinions.

Yeah but critical thinking about right and wrong is just so tiring. Why not just latch onto an approved set of opinions and make your life much easier? You also get approval from (the right sort of) peers.

^Should vegetarians be uncomfortable being 'on the same side' as Hitler?^

Hitler wasn't vegetarian. He was heavily into plant based for health reasons, but ate some pretty disgusting offally based meats too.
The vegetarian rumour was started as a PR stunt and gained wings because people like to dump on vegetarians.

You can't be vegetarian and eat goose liver. Words meant things then as they do now.

Judge them by the company they keep. Is that how we're doing it now.

So does my veganism mean that because I disagree with Piers Morgan (about sausage rolls) I'm a goody?
Or does the fact we both know what a woman is make me a baddy? Obviously we both have very different ideas of what being a woman means though...
I also imagine he agrees with me that the world is round. Tututut. The company I keep.

I hear Piers Morgan has unacceptable views on how to make tea so there's that.