Florida sued over bans on gender-affirming care for transgender youth

It appears you are not able to defend a position on the topic we are discussing here today. In the topic of irreversible, unnecessary cosmetic surgery on minors, can you defend encouraging these children to chase the image of femininity/masculinity fed to them by our society?

 

And you are ignoring my points. So let’s start with - how man,y children does this affect? Who actually is doing it? Why is it a “culture war” / political issue? Now if this is a widespread thing done on a whim then yes it may need the amount of fervour we are seeing presently BUT all of the research I have done suggests this is rare, done by a team of medical professionals and it is not rushed into. Meantime there are some (approx 1.7%) of children born “intersex” who until recently were being surgically altered to an assigned gender shortly after birth.

Of the two which is more unethical?

Now while there is all this republican led foofaraw about a small number of transgender kids no one is asking why we are seeing a rise in transgenderism. There is lots of blame around text books but hells bells if books were to blame then we should have banned Joan of Arc centuries ago. There is a huge problem underpinning this and not one Republican is saying it because it would upset the filthy rich donors.

EDC. ENDOCRINE DISRUPTING CHEMICALS

https://www.endocrine-abstracts.org/ea/0037/ea0037ep208

 

Is your position that we should allow irreversible unnecessary surgery on minors because it is rare?

Lets not make this about politics; I am just as disgusted with conversion therapy.

 

You didn’t read my post did you?

 

How did we ever get to the point that cutting off body parts was considered sane? And worse, how can we possibly do this to our children?

 

I am against circumcision too, makes no sense, let them decide for themselves when older

 

Many cultures throughout history sexually mutilated their children. They always have their reasons to justify it...

 

I don't understand why you are avoiding my simple question. My example is a healthy child experiencing gender dysphoria. Can you defend telling that child that they were born defective and require drugs and irreversible surgery to repair?

 

Fake news. They are protecting youth against predation.

What Are They Hiding? Pro-Transgender Groups Refuse to Hand Over Internal Documents Even as They Move to Oppose Florida’s Medicaid Rule.

'A large number of pro-transgender medical interest groups have supported a legal challenge to Florida’s rule barring use of Medicaid funds to pay for controversial transgender medical interventions, after most of the same organizations fought in court to hide documents relevant to the case.'

They claim they have supporting evidence, so why are they hiding it?

Numerous doctors, 'including former members and leaders of these groups, have testified against the experimental “gender-affirming care” guidelines.'

'Dr. Stephen B. Levine, a psychiatrist and early proponent of transgender medical interventions, spent decades with the organization that became the World Professional Association for Transgender Health. Recently, however, Levine has harshly criticized the group as “dominated by politics and ideology,” and condemned WPATH’s standards of care as “not an impartial or evidence-based document.”'

GENITAL MUTILATORS FEAR DEBATE

'Dr. Julia Mason, a member of the American Academy of Pediatrics, warned that “AAP has stifled debate on how best to treat youth in distress over their bodies, shut down efforts by critics to present better scientific approaches… and put its thumb on the scale… in favor of shoddy but politically correct research.”'

THEY CLAIM TO THE COURT THAT THEY HAVE ALL THIS 'SUPPORTING RESEARCH' FOR THESE EXPERIMENTAL 'TREATMENTS' BUT, THEY ARE FIGHTING TOOTH AND NAIL AGAINST DISCLOSING IT

'“Casting themselves in the underlying case as the standard bearers of the prevailing scientific view regarding gender dysphoria treatment—and used as such by [Lambda Legal]—the non-parties now seek to shield their perspective from any scrutiny,” the Agency for Health Care Administration writes in a Jan. 20 reply to the motion to quash the subpoenas.'

'“The non-parties refuse to answer whether their perspective is the result of careful study and debate among their memberships or the result of a handful of people dictating a result, as a past president of the American Academy of Pediatrics suggested,” AHCA’s response adds.'

THE ATTEMPTS TO CONCEAL DO NOT SPEAK WELL FOR THEM.

The Concealer's 'brief aims to dismiss the evidence of detransitioners—individuals such as Walt Heyer, Ted Halley, and Billy Burleigh, men who formerly identified as women and who had their bodies chemically and surgically altered only to regret those interventions later in life. The three men also wrote a brief supporting the Florida rule.'

'These detransitioners, in supporting AHCA’s Medicaid rule, argue that their own “personal experiences with gender dysphoria, gender transition surgery and medical treatments, and de-transition to embrace their biological sex” belie LGBT activists’ claims about a “supposed scientific consensus” on these interventions. The three men say their gender dysphoria was the result of childhood trauma, and that once they resolved that trauma, the dysphoria went away.'

AND AT THAT POINT THEIR BODIES WERE BUTCHERED

'The AAP/WPATH brief, however, claims that Heyer, Halley, and Burleigh are mistaken about their own motivations for detransitioning.'

OOOF!

“The non-parties’ views regarding the medical community’s supposed prevailing accepted standard of care for the treatment of gender dysphoria are the linchpin of [Lambda Legal’s] case against the [Medicaid] Rule,” the Agency for Health Care Administration argues in its reply brief from January. “The only way for AHCA to discern whether the non-parties’ views in fact represent the established medical consensus regarding gender dysphoria treatment—and for AHCA to adequately defend the [Medicaid] Rule—is for the non-parties to comply with their respective subpoenas and disclose the narrow range of testimony and documents sought by AHCA.”

THEY CLAIM THEIR POSITIONS ON THESE EXPERIMENTAL TREATMENTS HAVE UNQUESTIONED EMPIRICAL SUPPORT, SO, PRODUCE IT FOR THE COURT.

The Court is the right place to sort this out and we can all see exactly what support they actually have for these experimental treatments on children.

 

Any cosmetic surgery sold as a treatment for a mental disorder.

 

So a child getting a disfigurement corrected that posed no health problem would be unnecessary since the only purpose would be to make them feel better about themselves?

 

??? No