Is this a good thing?
Homepage › Forums › Small Talk › Is this a good thing?
This topic contains 29 replies, has 6 voices, and was last updated by 
Unseen 1 year, 9 months ago.
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 6, 2023 at 8:23 pm #48561
Gender Reassignment Surgery Is Now Available To Oregon Minors Without Parental Consent
Before they can drive a car, buy alcohol or cigarettes, go to a casino and gamble, or sign a binding contract, they can have their gender changed (probably a permanent change) and their parents can’t effectively step in to stop or even discuss it. Some nonparental adult gets to take the true parents’ rights away.
One nagging question needs to be considered: If they had waited until they were 18 or older, would they still see things the same way, with cutting up their genitalia being the one and only solution? Might not some, many, even most of them discover that they misdiagnosed the issue, and that they are actually gay or lesbian?
Chances are, if you are like me, you have given up some beliefs you felt to the depths of your very being by simply growing out of them and/or learning there’s more than one way to see an issue.
June 6, 2023 at 9:09 pm #48562Very old article and very biased. Here’s an important bit of information though:
The sheet also states that, although they are certainly able to, at the time of the fact sheet’s publishing, zero teens and 10 adults under the Oregon Health Plan have undergone sex reassignment surgery.
Very few transgender people undergo sex reassignment. Gender affirming care can be as simple as going by one preferred pronouns or a change in wardrobe. It’s disingenuous to consider that you can only be trans by chopping all bits; try to know some trans people before spewing your opinion.
This is a more recent, unbiased article that covers what your old one you posted and what’s being done now in the legal sphere.
First, the bill defines “gender-affirming treatment” as a procedure, service, drug, device or product that a physical or behavioral health care provider prescribes to treat an individual for incongruence between the individual’s gender identity and the individual’s sex assignment at birth. Under current Oregon law, insurance companies are not required to cover all of these forms of treatment. However, the state agency that regulates insurance companies has issued bulletins essentially directing insurance companies to cover them. HB 2002 would put that requirement into law, listing a number of specific procedures that must be covered to the extent that a health care provider determines they are medically necessary.
Even if a 15 year old may ask for a specific sex affirming surgery, the final day is on the doctor handling the case.
The bill also explicitly states that voluntary sterilization does not qualify as reproductive care for minors under 15 years of age, meaning people 14 and under will not be able to seek it on their own.
So no chopping bits. Because for some reason, adults care too much about what children want to do to their genitals.
June 6, 2023 at 9:37 pm #48563Few parents have much knowledge of trans care or what it is like to live with gender dysphoria. While that’s true for many potentially medical issues a youth may face, there is a great deal of misinformation and politicization surrounding trans care which may simply invite more bias with the involvement of parents rather than safeguard youth. Ideally, parents would be involved and many doctors would likely agree; however, youth need to be able to access medical care commensurate with their needs. Potential bigotry shouldn’t be a barrier to accessing health care. Denial of medical care to youth is child abuse.
One of the problems with the way this conversation tends to be framed is it positions the matter as youth simply being a to choose medical transition. They can’t. They can seek medical treatment and doctors can prescribe certain measures. While self-identification is a major factor in diagnosis, diagnostic criteria and treatment protocols take into account age. In the case of someone who is fifteen, even if they desire medical transition and even if they qualify, that likely means GnRH agonists or potentially cross-sex hormones, though many standards of care suggest sixteen as the minimum age to begin.
There is no ‘waiting until 18’. Puberty with take effect for nearly all people far younger than that and will result in irreversible changes, not to mention the potential harm suffered of being forced to wait.
Misdiagnosis is a possibility as it is with many conditions, but data available to date suggest it’s rare. Improved diagnostics, more resources available, and being able to see gender non-conforming youth younger should greatly improve outcomes.
This notion that transgender people are frequently really just gay or are butch girls or femme boys doesn’t hold much water. There are some anecdotal cases, so it’s not impossible, but making treatment harder to access does little to prevent these concerns. Again, better standards of care and access to them as well as better information on sexuality and gender identity seems a much more prudent course.
We don’t need to keep armchair quarterbacking this conversation over and over. Just repeatedly asking the same questions that largely have answers or at least data supported positions makes little sense. It’s not helping. This fumbling approach is counterproductive.
June 6, 2023 at 11:53 pm #48565Few parents have much knowledge of trans care or what it is like to live with gender dysphoria.
Most parents don’t have much knowledge of allergies or phobias, either, which is why they seek expert help once they are aware of a problem. By the same token, it’s nearly impossible to inform children about the impact of important choices going forward, isn’t it? Kids will want solutions on a “fighting fires” basis first. An informed parent can make a better choice than a child most of the time because, well, they aren’t children are they? and presumably they will have their child’s welfare foremost in mind.
If the state is going to wrest health decisions out of the hands of the parents, shouldn’t it prosecute the parents for neglect first?
There is no ‘waiting until 18’. Puberty with take effect for nearly all people far younger than that and will result in irreversible changes, not to mention the potential harm suffered of being forced to wait.
Puberty nowadays comes as early as 8 for girls and 9 for boys, and surgical and even chemical changes can have irreversible results, can’t they?
June 7, 2023 at 12:23 am #48566Wow, a 9 year old article is antiquated and biased as well. I do take that it’s been superseded, however.
“Disingenuous”? Moi? I think people who know me here know I raise topics not always to advocate for them but to stimulate discussion of the sorts of topics that are going around and especially when I think people don’t appreciate opposing points of view.
Finally, as I asked Autumn above, if a doctor is going to overrule a parent on a healthcare decision, shouldn’t there be an adjudication of neglect first? Also, if a doctor can step in in loco parentis here, why not everywhere?
June 7, 2023 at 12:37 am #48568Most parents don’t have much knowledge of allergies or phobias,
Why do you have to repeat the thing I said in the next fucking line as if you’re making a point?
By the same token, it’s nearly impossible to inform children about the impact of important choices going forward, isn’t it?
Not really. Under ordinary circumstances, we avoid having youth make decisions of this nature because it’s not ideal, but that doesn’t mean they are incapable of understanding their gender identity, their level of suffering, the need for treatment, and the impacts of treatment. These aren’t ordinary circumstances. Again, there isn’t a neutral option. GnRH agonists are the closest thing we have, presently.
Puberty nowadays comes as early as 8 for girls and 9 for boys, and surgical and even chemical changes can have irreversible results, can’t they?
The recommended threshold for GnRH agonists for gender non-conforming youth is Tanner stage 2 puberty. It’s the same treatment used for precocious puberty. It delays the effects of puberty and is reversible with discontinuation of the medication. Treatment options vary based on the needs of the individual and considerations specific to the individual.
June 7, 2023 at 12:44 am #48569Finally, as I asked Autumn above, if a doctor is going to overrule a parent on a healthcare decision, shouldn’t there be an adjudication of neglect first?
It’s not about overriding parents. It’s about whether youths can consent to treatment.
Also, if a doctor can step in in loco parentis here, why not everywhere?
Because it’s not in loco parentis. The doctor isn’t making the decision on behalf of the child or in proxy for the parents. The doctor is providing medical treatment options to a patient who as been deemed able to consent to treatment. The age of consent here is not specific to transgender patients. That’s the age of consent for medical and dental care in the state of Oregon.
Other jurisdictions have different standards. Atypical cases are often handled by courts or other mediating agencies, but problematically, this can delay treatment.
June 7, 2023 at 5:10 am #48579Hi! The real question we should be asking is,”Is this good for who?”
June 7, 2023 at 12:09 pm #48580Transgender people, gender non conforming people and people confused about their gender identity.
June 7, 2023 at 5:03 pm #48581Not really. Under ordinary circumstances, we avoid having youth make decisions of this nature because it’s not ideal, but that doesn’t mean they are incapable of understanding their gender identity, their level of suffering, the need for treatment, and the impacts of treatment. These aren’t ordinary circumstances. Again, there isn’t a neutral option. GnRH agonists are the closest thing we have, presently.
You don’t and never have had to parent a teenager. Just a guess. These are people who can’t be made to understand why maybe getting a tattoo of their current love interest on their forearm might be something they’d regret or if you point out something potentially dangerous they did while teaching them to drive will respond with “But I didn’t end up in an accident, did ?”
June 7, 2023 at 5:13 pm #48582It’s not about overriding parents. It’s about whether youths can consent to treatment.
Have fun convincing parents that it’s not. People under 18 and sometimes older than that can’t take out a loan for $500 without a cosigner. So much for their abilities to understand consequendes.
Why can’t I have sex with a 15 year old? Oh yeah, because they can’t give informed consent until age 18. But when it comes to “gender affirming care” suddenly they can have informed consent. Rather, what I think many fear will happen in real life is that a doctor or counselor who thinks/believes they know better than the parents will guide the child into a decision that the child will then make “freely.”
Parents should be legally removed by a court, not by statute, to be removed from such decisions and declare incompetent or neglectful or some such first.
June 7, 2023 at 6:00 pm #48584Not really. Under ordinary circumstances, we avoid having youth make decisions of this nature because it’s not ideal, but that doesn’t mean they are incapable of understanding their gender identity, their level of suffering, the need for treatment, and the impacts of treatment. These aren’t ordinary circumstances. Again, there isn’t a neutral option. GnRH agonists are the closest thing we have, presently.
You don’t and never have had to parent a teenager.
Irrelevant. The need for medical care is not analogous to getting a tattoo or choosing to have sex or your dipshit insights on parenting.
Why can’t I have sex with a 15 year old? Oh yeah, because they can’t give informed consent until age 18. But when it comes to “gender affirming care” suddenly they can have informed consent.
When it comes to medical care the can consent, not to trans care per se. Incidentally, trans care is medical care, so it fits under that umbrella, but this idea that ‘suddenly’ consent is valid where trans care is on the table is nonsense.
Parents should be legally removed by a court, not by statute, to be removed from such decisions and declare incompetent or neglectful or some such first.
The statue doesn’t remove them. It allows people who have reached the age of 15 to consent. This does not necessitate the removal of parents from the conversation neither does it obligate doctors to exclude them.
June 8, 2023 at 5:40 pm #48592a) I doubt if many of the parents here think parenting is irrelevant or some sort of nonessential role or that some doctor or counselor understands their child better than they do. Of course, legal intervention should logically be required for parental rights to be set aside. We parents know that what children want is often very ill-advised. For example, how well do they understand that if they undergo transition, they may have to live with an asterisk by their gender not only in the minds of many people but even, perhaps, in terms of public policies such as trans women being barred from some sports or being eligible only in, perhaps, a special category for such people?
b) The rest of your argument seems to be that the situation where children are deemed competent to sign on to even very extreme intervention is a legal fact, like it or not. That’s irrelevant. Simply because something is the law doesn’t ipso facto make it good law.
BTW, several European countries are pumping the brakes on gender-affirming “care.” The Scandinavian countries and France, for example. Norway recently said that much of the science offered to support it isn’t adequately evidence-based.
BTW, Europe is having second thoughts.
-
This reply was modified 1 year, 9 months ago by Unseen.
June 8, 2023 at 6:35 pm #48596a) I doubt if many of the parents here think parenting is irrelevant or some sort of nonessential role or that some doctor or counselor understands their child better than they do.
Who cares? The doctor doesn’t need to understand their child better than they do. The doctor needs to know appropriate treatment options. The youth knows their gender identity better than parents and the doctors know better than the parents what suitable treatment options are.
Of course, legal intervention should logically be required for parental rights to be set aside.
Why do you keep repeating the same shit? THIS IS ABOUT THE AGE OF CONSENT. It isn’t a parental rights issue. Parents are the default guardians because guardians are needed, not because they deserve special rights over other human beings.
We parents know that what children want is often very ill-advised. For example, how well do they understand that if they undergo transition, they may have to live with an asterisk by their gender not only in the minds of many people but even, perhaps,
It’s likely far more clear to a fifteen-year-old who has been questioning their gender identity than to a parent who hasn’t. Parents generally have no clue what gender dysphoria is like neither do they know what it is like to live as someone gender non-conforming/ trans. They have minimal pertinent insight into what their teen is going through. It is ideal if parents are involved because there are things they can offer to the process, but the ability to access adequate care can’t be contingent on parents. Youth are people in their own right who deserve access to care. Again, parents should not be a barrier to care. In cases where they may be for whatever reason, being able to consent to care removes a barrier, whether it is ideal or not.
b) The rest of your argument seems to be that the situation where children are deemed competent to sign on to even very extreme intervention is a legal fact, like it or not. That’s irrelevant.
No, that isn’t my argument. It’s clarifying a misconception you seem to have about parents being sidestepped. The law states that youth at the age of fifteen can consent to medical care in the state of Oregon. It doesn’t mandate parents being shoved to the sidelines.
BTW, several European countries are pumping the brakes on gender-affirming “care.” The Scandinavian countries and France, for example. Norway recently said that much of the science offered to support it isn’t adequately evidence-based.
The current state is that data is limited. What data does exists, on balance, indicates positive outcomes in terms of wellbeing and reducing suicidal ideation. However, transition isn’t a magic bullet that undoes all psychological harm, shields against stigma or discrimination, or necessarily removes all dysphoria especially in the earlier stages of treatment.
It is known that treatment is highly effective in certain cases. However, with the recent influx of patients seeking care, lack of adequate resources to provide that care, and newer diagnostic models and treatment models being, well… new, then some jurisdictions are opting for a conservative approach going forward. It’s not entirely a bad idea in certain cases, e.g. Tavistock in the UK did have issues. Unfortunately, rather than address those issues, it seems trans kids largely just got thrown to the wolves.
None of these conservative approaches indicate that current treatment protocols such as those favoured in Canada and the parts of the US that haven’t gone off the deep end are bad. They’re playing the ‘not enough evidence’ card (which is ironic since they also, in some cases cite poorly supported GnHR agonist complication suspicions as a counterweighted consideration). And while there is value in prudence, it will prove to be a problem if they don’t provide more suitable alternatives.
I really don’t know why you are so opposed to just learning about a topic before spouting off on it. You aren’t challenging anything here. You’re just spouting nonsense. It’s abundantly clear you don’t know what the fuck you are talking about. Certainly I don’t participate in these exchanges for the interaction with you. I only do it on the off chance someone is reading along to provide some indication that you’re talking out your ass.
June 8, 2023 at 11:17 pm #48597Thank you April.
when I read the thing about tattoos I identified immediately because I was the sailor who refused to get one while on liberty in The Philippines. Told everyone that I’d probably feel differently in twenty years.
You’re so right. There is no comparison between that and a fifteen year old getting medical care.
Thanks for the very informative lesson.
-
This reply was modified 1 year, 9 months ago by
-
AuthorPosts
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.