New poll finds strong majority opposes gender-affirming care bans for trans minors
At the same time, a slim majority calls transitioning "morally wrong."
Double negative confused me for a second and I was sad. Opposes the ban! Want gender affirming care available. Excellent.
Oh I missed that entirely. Sloppy writing, it should be arranged "opposes bans on gender affirming care".
Gotta get them clicks tho. Maybe we're at the beginning of a transition from, "shocking and attention-grabbing headlines," to, "attention-grabbing but also poorly written in a way that it'll agitate an even wider wash of readers"
Same! "Supports care" would have been an easier concept, though a little different from "opposes ban" I guess...
Lol same had to read it 2x 😂
I find it quite common (and confusing) for certain news types like policy, eg “party A reverses the disapproval to oppose the once-unacceptable ban”
Then morally don't do it yourself and leave everyone else to make their own decisions.
Why do so many people care about what other people do to their own bodies?
They oppose bans on care. But a slight majority thinks it's wrong to transition.
I think that's what you're looking for. They don't want to do it, but don't want to ban anyone who's doing it.
And we also should allow alcohol and drugs for minors. And weddings of course.
Medical and psychological consensus says we shouldn't allow children to marry or drink alcohol or do drugs. Where's the medical consensus that we shouldn't allow GRT?
Kind of a weak argument, we currently ignore the first part almost entirely from a legal perspective, I don't remember the last time a child or parent got in trouble for a kid sneaking booze under age. They get in trouble for the things they do while drunk, but not the drinking itself. The parents get talked to, but unless they bought them the alcohol there's no repercussions.
As for the the weddings, they are still legal with no effective minimum age in 4 US states (and there are multiple marriages a year as young as 12) and about half the states only restrict it to age 16+
False equivalent
That's so nice! I'm so happy for US folks! Here in the UK only 12% support Gender-affirming care for trans minors, most want it banned, most actually don't support it for adults either 😢
https://yougov.co.uk/society/articles/43194-where-does-british-public-stand-transgender-rights-1 (you need to see the full results to see that)
It’s really fucked up that so many people think it’s their place to be involved in other people’s personal medical decisions, especially when the medical guidelines are currently quite conservative, and based on medical consensus.
A lot of people are social authoritarians, but very few will admit it.
It's not called TERF Island for nothing!
Gosh, it's almost as though most people aren't hateful bigots. Hateful bigots should take note, but they won't. In fact, if they do it'll only be to point out how they're being persecuted. I dislike hateful bigots.
Ok, then don't get your kid gender affirming care. Why is it so fucking hard for people to mind their own business?
This is a good headline. Most people oppose the bans.
It looks like you misread the headline.
I don’t know that that’s a great solution though. I also worry that just because a majority oppose bans, that doesn’t mean they’d all be in favor of it for their child
It sounds like you don't know what gender affirming care for minors is.
Therapy, safely delaying puberty, general support - which of these do you take issue with exactly?
Removed, transphobia.
I made the TERRIBLE decision to learn an instrument. Idk how I can ever live with myself.
What’s that you say? It doesn’t actually impact anything I do as an adult?
I don't understand what is so reprehensible about trans kids being able to socially transition to live as their chosen gender? Social transition is clothing and behaviour, not surgical or medical. If the kid doesn't like it, they tried it, found out for themselves, and can stop whenever they want.
And what is so evil about trans kids being able to choose to delay puberty till 18, so they can as legal adults, then decide if they want to safely medically and surgically transition, or not and go through the puberty of their birth gender?
Going through puberty in the wrong body causes unbelievable distress to many trans kids, leading to eating disorders, self harm, suicide, and a whole load of other awful mental and physical problems.
Why is safely alleviating harm to these children by allowing them to socially transition and delay puberty, a bad thing?
No trans child is getting surgery. Puberty blockers are safe and entierly reversible.
Gender affirming care has nothing to do with your disgusting paedophillic fantasies about children, and that you even correlate the two IS reprehensible and very telling of the type of person you are.
.
Intersex children (born with undefined anatomy) get operated on at doctors discretion from their birth onwards, but this isn't a conversation about that, however immoral and harrowing it is.
If a kid has a heart condition and they have to have a risky surgery, the doctors ask the parents. Because the child is not old enough to understand the implications of these things.
I see gender dysphoria as a similar thing. The suicide rate is very high for these individuals so some form of treatment is essential if you care about your child. It's the same as if they had a heart issue with like a 40% risk of dying. It's life or death.
The transitioning process works best if it happens before puberty. When a child goes through puberty, the sexual hormones start pumping and that permanently changes many parts of the body. Literally the shape and size of bones will change.
If you catch gender dysphoria before puberty, the end result of the transition will be much more effective than doing it at 18 or 20. By that point there's no going back from puberty.
So essentially - the child isn't making a decision. The parents are making an informed medical decision based on a diagnosis by a medical professional.
I really don't see this as any different than any other medical issue. The difference is this is unusual and many people think emotionally.
That's what I can't fathom. This is such a big boost for children's mental health. It heavily reduces their depression and suicide risk. They're happier.
Maybe this is controversial, but if a parent isn't willing to do that for their kid, I believe it's neglect and endangerment. They aren't fit to be a parent, and the state should intervene. We don't let parents with batshit religious beliefs deny their children lifesaving treatment. We shouldn't let parents deny their children treatment that would vastly improve their mental health and reduce their suicide risk.
Man I have to disagree on the heart example. One means death if it's not 'treated' and the other is a life choice.
Of course pre-hormones is a great time to start but for external / appearance reasons. Do we not force body types on kids enough? It's shallow thinking and reinforces the worst parts of society.
I do understand the urge to just dive into it but it's not as clean cut as just "push pause." There are known risks, unknown long term effects, and a lack of sufficient testing on how it affects brain development. We need to stop rushing into shit just because it's easy or highlights how virtuous we are.
You’re getting downvoted because you’re repeating false rhetoric.
No, pretty much nobody thinks a child should be having a sexual relationship with whomever they want. However, teens do have those relationships, and most of us acknowledge it happens and are generally ok with it provided there aren’t clear signs of abuse.
Likewise, no one thinks a child should medically transition. However, many of us think teens should be able to medically transition. In fact, decisions about transitioning are often happening several years later than decisions about sex.
Your hypothetical example was to give people a mental image of 6 and 7 year olds when you know damn well the conversation is about 16 and 17 year olds. And if you genuinely weren’t aware, you are now, so it’s time to rethink your position.
If you want to talk about these decisions in the age group where they’re actually happening, then sure, let’s talk. But it’s not going to be conversational if you’re not willing to start from a position of intellectual honesty.
I'm getting downvoted because I made a strongly worded statement that makes a parallel that makes people uncomfortable. It's easy to push a button and feel like you've somehow confirmed your social values. It doesn't bother me. If they don't speak up they had nothing to contribute.
No, pretty much nobody thinks a child should be having a sexual relationship with whomever they want. However, teens do have those relationships, and most of us acknowledge it happens and are generally ok with it provided there aren’t clear signs of abuse.
However we aren't okay with early teens having those relationships outside of controlled environments (age etc.). You can decide as long as it's within our parameters. And while this is happening - we still legally eviscerate teens that have sex with each other. I digress.
Likewise, no one thinks a child should medically transition. [truncated] Your hypothetical example was to give people a mental image of 6 and 7 year olds when you know damn well the conversation is about 16 and 17 year olds. And if you genuinely weren’t aware, you are now, so it’s time to rethink your position.
I'm all for it at 16 or 17. This is being done on/to 12-15 year old highschoolers. This is the target age range I was looking at as well. I selected an ambiguous age because it drove the point home. I know damn well what I wrote and why I wrote it. Everyone loves to assign additional meaning to someones actions- not dissimilar from forcing kids into a risky decision early on in their development.
If you want to talk about these decisions in the age group where they’re actually happening, then sure, let’s talk. But it’s not going to be conversational if you’re not willing to start from a position of intellectual honesty.
I've been nothing but honest. I come from a family of educators and medical professionals. My opinions are founded based on my experiences, my friends experiences, and my families experiences. But I guess intellectual honesty isn't that. Please direct me which line I need to intellectualy fall into?
In almost all cases the point is to keep things reversible. The problem is puberty. Once the hormone cascades hit, it's far harder to transition. At the same time, fully transitioning is not something many children are equipped to cope with.
Luckily there is a 3rd option. Puberty can be delayed without permanent issues. This gives the patient and doctors time to figure out what to do long term. If they were confused, they stop the drugs, and puberty happens normally. If they truly want to transition, they are in a far better position to change than if they experienced puberty as the "wrong" gender.
By delaying the changes, it allows time for them to process what they want. It also lets them experience living as the other gender, in a reversible manner.
This is the first half that everyone wants to champion but reality is that drugs of any kind - treatments of any kind - have side effects and lasting effects.
Hitting pause as everyone so eloquently puts it does actually have effects outside of underdeveloped sexual organs. It's not a magic bullet.
I'm not against someone being who they want to be but do so after the age of consent when your development is slowing down. It's safer.
As far as what children are equipped to deal with: That age range is for discovering their identity. Hitting pause is a disservice to that cause. Yes the physical changes are a real thing - but those changes aren't all sexual either and are affected by the drugs we're shoving onto these kids.
If anything the current culture is forcing them to make a decision on "take these drugs now or you won't be perfect." Fuck that. Pushing a decision on them like that, regardless of our intent, is no better than denying who they are (or who they may become) outright.
I may not advocate for changing children when they are developing but once they have more time to be certain of who they want to become - I'm all for it.
You're totally right! Kids shouldn't be able to acquire whatever drugs they want independently of parents and doctors. Luckily that's not on discussion anywhere