The Medical University of South Carolina initially said it wouldn’t be affected by a law banning use of state funds for treatment “furthering the gender transition” of children under 16. Months later, it cut off that care to all trans minors.
The Medical University of South Carolina initially said it wouldn’t be affected by a law banning use of state funds for treatment “furthering the gender transition” of children under 16. Months later, it cut off that care to all trans minors.
One Saturday morning in September 2022, Terrence Steyer, the dean of the College of Medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina, placed an urgent call to a student. Just a year prior, the medical student, Thomas Agostini, had won first place at a university-sponsored event for his graduate research on transgender pediatric patients. He also had been featured in a video on MUSC’s website highlighting resources that support the LGBTQ+ community.
Now, Agostini and his once-lauded study had set off a political firestorm. Conservative activists seized on one line in particular in the study’s summary — a parenthetical noting the youngest transgender patient to visit MUSC’s pediatric endocrinology clinic was 4 years old — and inaccurately claimed that children that young were prescribed hormones as part of a gender transition. Elon Musk amplified the false claim, tweeting, “Is it really true that four-year-olds are receiving hormone treatment?” That led federal and state lawmakers to frantically ask top MUSC leaders whether the public hospital was in fact helping young children medically transition. The hospital was not; its pediatric transgender patients did not receive hormone therapy before puberty, nor does it offer surgical options to minors.
the neat part is the American health care system always finds a new way of disappointing everyone.
what's truly upsetting is that the few trans people that may need to go to that hospital for the fastest health care are going to find out the shitty way they've been blacklisted.
there is probably a good legal case against this misinformation but how many trans have the time and energy to fight backdoor politics?
Yeah exactly, I’m trying to afford rent and stave off burnout too. I spent years doing activism but I’m almost 30 and I’m exhausted. And even when we do fight we’re a third of a percent of the population and economically disadvantaged before you take into account the expenses of transitioning (fortunately I’m past most of it, but spending my first years out of college saving up for a $20000 surgery was a serious financial hit)
And all this for what? My state government doesn’t give half a shit what we want. I’ll keep trying to vote them out but they realized they don’t even actually have to do what courts say. The courts won’t actually punish the legislature, just the state coffers if that.
you mean the innie vs the outie and or vice versa? i am not qualified nor proposed to speak on behalf of individuals seeking to be seen as a certain gender. They are going to E X T R E M E lengths to be accepted by themselves and society..and we have the luxury to ask 'is that really a necessary procedure?'
yes. the world is cruel enough
im a straight married man. and if someone told me how, who, or what can I be? id make that person swallow all their teeth. but no one dares rile up that cis crowd base.
just the easiest and marginalized the transgendered.
just because we don't see it as important doesn't mean anything. :/
It can be both. There are cases of paramedics refusing to treat trans women, to the point where they die.
Doctors will also assume that any medical issue you have is due to your hormones and not treat you. I passed a kidney stone on my own because I was hurting in the “wrong” place.
We have Two SCOTUS justices who committed perjury during their confirmation hearings and another who has been caught accepting bribes from petitioners of the court. You're putting an awful lot of faith in the court.
Well if you decide that it’s religion you can hurt people by deciding that their medical care isn’t something your god approves of. And no you don’t need to find sufficient text or historical justification
Wasn't there a case before SCOTUS where they held only "closely held beliefs" (or some shit) was allowed?
I can't find the actual case or verbage but basically it made it possible to force, say, spaghetti monster believers to adopt laws against their beliefs. Essentially paving the way for Christian nationalism.