politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
This is the reason he won. Society ain't happy with plastic surgeries performed on children
Only minors, neither article nor my own research point to adult ban. Looks like the article lies on purpose
Which statistically isn't a thing that's happening and I've never heard anyone argue in favor of.
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/gender-affirming-surgeries-rarely-performed-on-transgender-youth/
Legally still children. You're trying to argue it's fine to do this on 12-17 year olds?
They get charged as adults in court all the time. Girls of this age can get pregnant and in some places this makes them a legal adult regardless of age. Most places in the US they can get married. It's hard to feel they are full children given all this.
Also, they can't get treatment without parental consent, which is not true of most of the above.
Edit: and I forgot join the military! Statistically far more people regret their military service than their gender care.
Harry Potter tattoos have a higher regret rate than transgender surgeries
Most of the regret rate, when looked at alongside reasons for de-transitioning, usually winds up being FAR more on the side of "it's fucking easier for me to live as my assigned gender and deal with the dysphoria, than dealing with rednecks threatening to turn me into their latest lynching victim every Tuesday."
Still they have severe legal limitations of what they can and can't do. If you want to argue that age of majority should be lower, it comes with bunch of other ugly problems, like alcohol, prostitution, adult content consumption ect.
I guess you missed the parental permission part.
I'm not sure you understand the hurdles that a trans kid and their families have to go through to get gender affirming care in the first place. It's not like you can just walk into a doctors office and get your penis turned inside out on a whim.
The whole "kids getting gender reassignment surgery" is just a dog whistle to get people who are ignorant on the topic riled up.
Should people waste thier time with a sealion?
😂
Yes
Seems like you're arguing for the sake of arguing.
You completely ignored the part where the person explained to you that it's not a flip of a coim that decides this outcome.
It's a joined decision made by the patient, parents/guardians, doctors and psychologists.
Why do you think a redneck's sole, uniformed, uneducated 'gut feeling' opinion has more weight than all of those people combined?
So who? The gov? Like you did with roe?
So much for small government conservatives.
This asshole is just bad faith garbage with disproven arguments.
Troll is my bet.
I think that, if this question is in good faith, this might be the right time for you to tell us what you think the process is for transitioning. What the steps are, how long you're legally required to wait between steps, what paperwork and doctor's visits are required for which step, which step is a "point of no return", that kind of thing.
We don't know what level your knowledge is at and it's hard to educate someone who is not brave enough to put themselves out there to be corrected.
On the other hand if you don't want to learn today and you just want to feel empowered in your hate, I think Twitter is great for that kind of thing
When it comes to arguing against access to gender-affirming healthcare for trans individuals, it's never in good faith.
I think if you want to change your gender via surgery you should be at least 18 years old. That barrier is put there for many reasons for all sorts of activities, and responsibilities. Having potentially hazardous surgery is perfectly within that framework
I'm sorry, but I asked if you knew what the steps are, how long you're legally required to wait between steps, what paperwork and doctor's visits are required for which step, which step is a "point of no return", that kind of thing. Do you have any knowledge about those topics whatsoever, or are you forming opinions without knowing anything about the topic at hand?
Do I need to know? What this type of knowledge brings to the debate?
Yes, you need to be knowledgeable about or have experience with things you have opinions on. To do anything otherwise would be "spreading lies because of an agenda."
Well, it brings the knowledge that if minors do get a double mastectomy (top surgery), they have to be on testosterone for a while (minimum of a year, which is a LONG time to figure out that maybe you don't like these changes). They also have to get consent from parents and 2 separate therapists plus an endocrinologist need to sign off on the surgery.
I feel like if you knew this, it'd probably be a lot less scary to you. They have to jump through a lot of hoops and every hoop gives a lot of time for them to figure out if this is the right choice.
An actual understanding of what you're arguing against? You feel that it's too easy for minors to get gender-affirming surgery, yet you actually know nothing of the process.
If you're not willing to learn about what you're arguing against, you're acting in bad faith.
Yup, this exactly. The smartest thing to do with a population that is historically the most mentally stable among us we should tell children they just need to hold out two more years to deal with the things making their lives hell. They'll be fine, or not, who cares really? They should just realize gender is fake and they're a man, but failing that wait until I don't have a good legal argument yet before taking steps to make your life better.
Quick quiz question, what is the regret rate for the procedure you're talking about?
I'm asking if you're okay mutilating 999 children for the 1 child who has the potential to possibly change their mind. Are trans people worth so much less than cis people in your mind this seems like a reasonable exchange?
Oh, so you must support puberty blockers then, so children suffering gender dysphoria don't need to have permanent physical changes that cause them significant distress and permanently change their body in consistently unwanted ways?
To your question, who takes responsibility for any medical mistake? The hospital, and the parents involved.
That's what I thought, you don't give a fuck about children, you just want to hurt trans kids. Best to permanently hurt thousands just in case of one hypothetical secret cis kid. Weak. Goodbye, go be vile elsewhere please.
After reaching the whole exchange between you two, Twitter seems like the correct cesspool to be emigrating to.
I know better than to respond to someone like you, but I’m doing it anyway bc I’m a masochist or something idk.
If you’re not ok mutilating children, then how about you ban non-elective circumcision first. You know the thing that’s being performed on newborn baby boys at an almost infinitely higher rate (in the US at least) than any sort of gender reassignment on children.
That's conservatives. Cis gender affirming care for kids isn't banned. Surgeries on children's genitals are not banned. It's perfectly fine to circumcize an infant. Genital mutilation as a whole isn't brought up by these people... they simply got rid of the transgender aspects.
Trumpers don't see anything wrong with aesthetic surgeries for children. They just can't be gender affirming for transgender kids. Only gender affirming for cis children.
I should have just scrolled down before responding to that bigoted fuck. But yeah, the fact that genital mutilation is fine, as long as it follows their assigned at birth gender, is ridiculous and completely fucking hypocritical, although that tracks for evangelicals and the right.
Circumcision reinforces the control they get off on, so it’s ok. Gender affirming care subverts both their control and their backwards worldview so it’s not and cognitive dissonance can get fucked.
In some places, people get away with sending their kids to conversion therapy to provide sexuality affirming "care". Conservatives aren't bitching about that now, are they?
Hypocrites.
Why are you expanding the age range beyond what you quoted? Seems like a bad faith tactic. Try harder next time.
At an incidence of 2 for every 100,000 getting surgery, I have to assume that between the individual, their parents, and the doctors involved there was some concerning factor that pushed the surgical intervention into something more than simply treating the emotional/mental body dysmorphia. And I'm not so pompous as to try and inject myself into that process on their behalf.
Plastic surgery is performed on children all the time. How do you think we treat cleft lip/palate? Or deal with rrcovery from facial etc. injuries after an accident? Dumbass.
People didn't care enough to show up to stop forced births, you think they care about puberty blockers? Doubt.
The most common type of gender affirming care is boys spontaneously developing breasts and wanting them removed. Nothing to do with being trans.
I'm sure once some high-ranking Republican's son is getting bullied relentlessly for having titties, they'll rethink their position.
I don't think it's the reason why Trump won.
Also, most people don't experience trans problems, so the whole thing is a storm in a teacup. Let people have more medical care, not less.