Is this a good thing?

[Unseen]

Autumn wrote:

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.

If that’s the sort of argument you want to trot out, what are parents good for, anyway? Apparently, it’s not guidance or putting a firm “Whoa!” on a potentially bad and irreversible decision.

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.

And, apparently, they are so hopelessly unteachable as well. A lot of folks feel that children are better off in the hands of people who love them than people who are just doing a job.

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.

I knew the ad hominem (and/or poisoning the well) was coming at some point. Here we are.

Not every issue is solely solvable via studies and statistics alone. There are also issues of values and ethics. Many people see the idea and ideal of the nuclear family with its bonds based on love and duty being attacked and adulterated, slowly chipped away at.

How much value do you place on the family as an institution? Your take on how to handle dysphoria seems to be highly technocratic and destructive to the concept of the family.

 

 

[—]

Unseen wrote:

If that’s the sort of argument you want to trot out, what are parents good for, anyway? Apparently, it’s not guidance or putting a firm “Whoa!” on a potentially bad and irreversible decision.

What are parents good for? Lots of things, but being doctor substitutes tends not to be one of them.

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.

And, apparently, they are so hopelessly unteachable as well. A lot of folks feel that children are better off in the hands of people who love them than people who are just doing a job.

Which is why we have parents to surgeries on their kids too, right? Because caring the way a parent does is the qualification for providing specialized care.

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.

I knew the ad hominem (and/or poisoning the well) was coming at some point. Here we are.

It’s not an ad hom. You aren’t informed about the topic and you’re talking out your ass. It’s evident and relevant.

Not every issue is solely solvable via studies and statistics alone. There are also issues of values and ethics. Many people see the idea and ideal of the nuclear family with its bonds based on love and duty being attacked and adulterated, slowly chipped away at. How much value do you place on the family as an institution? Your take on how to handle dysphoria seems to be highly technocratic and destructive to the concept of the family.

Irrelevant. Providing medical care to youth is not an attack on the family, regardless of how people see it.

[Davis]

Your take on how to handle dysphoria seems to be highly technocratic and destructive to the concept of the family.

Groan.

[Unseen]

Autumn wrote:

What are parents good for? Lots of things, but being doctor substitutes tends not to be one of them.

Doctors should be a resource for parental decision making, not parent substitutes.

Which is why we have parents to (do?) surgeries on their kids too, right? Because caring the way a parent does is the qualification for providing specialized care.

No one should be doing surgery on children without being told to do so by the parents, unless the parents have been taken out of the picture by a legal process for something like abuse or neglect. You seem to characterize parents no approving “gender affirming care” as neglectul anyway, so that should be a slam dunk, right?

It’s not an ad hom. You aren’t informed about the topic and you’re talking out your ass.

Not just ad hominem and poisoning the well but personal and abusive as well.

Providing medical care to youth is not an attack on the family, regardless of how people see it.

When it usurps the parental rights of competent parents, it is.

 

 

[—]

Unseen wrote:

Doctors should be a resource for parental decision making, not parent substitutes.

You keep repeating the notion of ‘parent substitutes’ as if that’s what’s happening, but it isn’t.

Which is why we have parents to (do?) surgeries on their kids too, right? Because caring the way a parent does is the qualification for providing specialized care.

No one should be doing surgery on children without being told to do so by the parents,

Do you work at missing the point, or is it a natural talent? You keep conflating the role of doctors and parents. This isn’t a situation where one is replacing the other plain and simple.

You seem to characterize parents no approving “gender affirming care” as neglectul anyway, so that should be a slam dunk, right?

Do you understand the time are resources necessary for this along with the potential delays to treatment in the process? It’s irrelevant anyway. This legal policy isn’t particular to trans care. It’s about when youth can consent to medical and dental care.

It’s not an ad hom. You aren’t informed about the topic and you’re talking out your ass.

Not just ad hominem and poisoning the well but personal and abusive as well.

Your comments have made it clear you know very little about trans care, very little about the complications surrounding it, very little about the consent standards in Oregon and very little bout the distinction between acting as a doctor and acting as a parent. Just because you find statements unflattering doesn’t make them ad hominem attacks and certainly not ad hominem fallacies.

Providing medical care to youth is not an attack on the family, regardless of how people see it.

When it usurps the parental rights of competent parents, it is.

It doesn’t. Individuals determine their own care options. Parents don’t dictate their care for them. That isn’t a right or entitlement parents have. In cases where an individual cannot consent, it becomes necessary for a parent or guardian or next of kin to make decision. Whether you think fifteen is too young or not is a separate matter. Parents making care decisions for children who cannot consent is a necessary measure rather than a right of parents. When it is deemed not necessary, then individual rights of the patient should prevail.

And to reiterate, this consent policy does not require or even recommend the removal of parents from decision-making. It doesn’t make doctors de factor parents in the decision making process. The parents remain the parents. The patient remains the patient, and the doctor remains the doctor. The only variable that shifts is the ability to consent.

[Unseen]

Autumn wrote:

You keep repeating the notion of ‘parent substitutes’ as if that’s what’s happening, but it isn’t.

I think most of the people who value the family as an institution would beg to differ.

This legal policy isn’t particular to trans care. It’s about when youth can consent to medical and dental care.

Which is a legal fact. Which doesn’t make it a good policy or the right policy. Laws are made by people and people are flawed.

Your comments have made it clear you know very little about trans care, very little about the complications surrounding it, very little about the consent standards in Oregon and very little bout the distinction between acting as a doctor and acting as a parent. Just because you find statements unflattering doesn’t make them ad hominem attacks and certainly not ad hominem fallacies.

I am looking at the situation from a different perspective. One in which the primacy of the family unit is central. That doesn’t give you the right to portray someone like me as merely an ignoramus. If I’m an ignoramus about about trans care, you display little an abysmal ignorance about the value of preserving the family to our society, with parents in charge of their children’s care unless they are incompetent or neglectful (or vicious). No one should be doing an end run around the family. What the law is is irrelevant to a discussion of the values for the law can be changed.

And to reiterate, this consent policy does not require or even recommend the removal of parents from decision-making. It doesn’t make doctors de factor parents in the decision making process. The parents remain the parents. The patient remains the patient, and the doctor remains the doctor. The only variable that shifts is the ability to consent.

It is American legal tradition that parents have the responsibility and authority to make medical decisions on behalf of their children, including the right to refuse or discontinue treatments, even those that may be life-sustaining. I admit, decisions that are clearly not in a child’s best interest can and should be challenged. You find that threatening somehow.

What is too extreme about bringing in a judicial third party to decide is the aforementioned parental rights should be tossed aside by determining that the parents are not acting appropriately?

 

 

[Davis]

the value of preserving the family to our society

The amount of times I have hear that phrase, then followed by vile justification for discrimination. I am genuinely curious precisely what “preserving the family to our society” means. Please elaborate on that Unseen. Be specific.

[—]

Unseen wrote:

Autumn wrote:

You keep repeating the notion of ‘parent substitutes’ as if that’s what’s happening, but it isn’t.

I think most of the people who value the family as an institution would beg to differ.

People are free to lie to themselves. The facts remain unaltered. The doctor acts as a doctor and the patient acts as a patient, same as they always would. The only notable difference is the age of consent, but there is no principle difference in the role of doctor, patient, and parent in situations where a patient is capable of consent. I don’t know why this simple fact needs to be repeated for you.

I am looking at the situation from a different perspective. One in which the primacy of the family unit is central. That doesn’t give you the right to portray someone like me as merely an ignoramus.

I am describing the limits of your knowledge fairly. The relevance of the ‘primacy of the family unit’ has not been established. This policy does not alter anything regarding families.

If I’m an ignoramus about about trans care,

You are.

…you display little an abysmal ignorance about the value of preserving the family to our society.

I don’t. I’m not making statements on the value of preserving family one way or the other, regardless of how ignorant I may or may not be on the subject matter. It’s simply not relevant. The consent policy does nothing to deteriorate family.

…parents in charge of their children’s care unless they are incompetent or neglectful (or vicious).

This law doesn’t change whether parents are in charge of their children’s care. It recognizes fifteen as an acceptable age to consent to treatment. Those are two very different things in practice and theory.

I admit, decisions that are clearly not in a child’s best interest can and should be challenged. You find that threatening somehow.

Baseless statement and irrelevant.

It is American legal tradition that parents have the responsibility and authority to make medical decisions on behalf of their children, including the right to refuse or discontinue treatments,

Up to the point that the individual can consent to medical care on their own. This policy doesn’t change that. It changes the age at which that responsibility shifts. And even at that, it doesn’t mean parents won’t be involved in the medical decisions concerning minors. It simply means that at fifteen, consent is a possibility.

What is too extreme about bringing in a judicial third party to decide is the aforementioned parental rights should be tossed aside by determining that the parents are not acting appropriately?

I’ve already been over this. If the youth is capable of consenting to treatment, then delaying care and going through a legal battle is needlessly taxing, stressful, and contentious.

[Unseen]

Davis wrote:

the value of preserving the family to our society

The amount of times I have hear that phrase, then followed by vile justification for discrimination. I am genuinely curious precisely what “preserving the family to our society” means. Please elaborate on that Unseen. Be specific.

The family holds significant value to society as a whole. It plays a crucial role in shaping individuals, providing support systems, and contributing to the overall well-being and stability of communities. Here are several key aspects that highlight the value of the family:

1. Socialization and Education: Families are the primary socializing agents for children, teaching them fundamental values, norms, and societal expectations. Within the family unit, children learn essential life skills, values such as respect, empathy, and cooperation, and gain a sense of identity and belonging.

2. Emotional Support: Families provide emotional support, love, and care to their members, creating a safe and nurturing environment. This support system helps individuals navigate challenges, cope with stress, and develop resilience. Strong family bonds can contribute to mental and emotional well-being.

3, Stability and Security: Families provide a sense of stability and security for their members. A stable family environment promotes a sense of belonging and emotional security, which allows individuals to thrive in other areas of life. A supportive family can act as a buffer against social problems and contribute to a healthier society.

4.Economic Contributions: Families play a vital role in the economy. They provide for the basic needs of their members, including food, shelter, and clothing. In addition, families often contribute to the workforce, both through paid employment and unpaid domestic work. The stability and well-being of families can impact the productivity and economic growth of a society.

5. Care and Aging: Families are often responsible for the care and support of children, elderly parents, or family members with disabilities or special needs. By providing care within the family unit, the burden on social welfare systems can be reduced, allowing resources to be allocated more efficiently.

6. Transmission of Cultural Heritage: Families pass down cultural traditions, values, and customs from one generation to the next. This transmission of cultural heritage helps preserve cultural diversity, strengthens social cohesion, and fosters a sense of continuity and identity within communities.

That was from ChatGPT, by the way, but I don’t find a lot to disagree with in it. Still, it is only one answer.

Davis, if this isn’t the sort of answer you were looking for, then tell me what you would find convincing.

Be specific.

 

[Unseen]

Autumn wrote:

People are free to lie to themselves. The facts remain unaltered. The doctor acts as a doctor and the patient acts as a patient, same as they always would. The only notable difference is the age of consent, but there is no principle difference in the role of doctor, patient, and parent in situations where a patient is capable of consent. I don’t know why this simple fact needs to be repeated for you.

But I see no reason for a different age of consent for obtaining medical care than for signing any other sort of contract, and 18 is a minimum age for signing almost any sort of contract. Contracting for medical care should require parent cosigners, just as with a loan, as long as they are competent and deemed fit to play the parental role.

The relevance of the ‘primacy of the family unit’ has not been established.

I think most people understand it almost by osmosis. See my response to Davis’s question.

The consent policy does nothing to deteriorate family.

Then, maybe injecting the state into the bedroom doesn’t deteriorate intimate relationships between consenting adults(?).

This law doesn’t change whether parents are in charge of their children’s care. It recognizes fifteen as an acceptable age to consent to treatment. Those are two very different things in practice and theory.

Autumn, we’re not talking about Band-Aids or teeth cleaning here (and, BTW, most minors would not go to the dentist unless their parents dragged them there). If parents are competent and concerned with their child’s welfare, not just now but going on into adult life, then convince them. Otherwise, declare them unfit to decide.

Up to the point that the individual can consent to medical care on their own. This policy doesn’t change that. It changes the age at which that responsibility shifts. And even at that, it doesn’t mean parents won’t be involved in the medical decisions concerning minors. It simply means that at fifteen, consent is a possibility.

I don’t care what the law says. This is a philosophical discussion. The law once said people could be enslaved, that women couldn’t vote, that being gay or lesbian was criminal. The law can be a dunce. It is a dunce to say that kids can’t sign virtually any other contract without parental cosignature, except in this one instance. Makes no sense whatsoever.

You constantly use “consent” with regard to kids without using “informed consent.” Minors are notorious for making unwise decisions which is why parents are involved.

 

[—]

Unseen wrote:

But I see no reason for a different age of consent for obtaining medical care than for signing any other sort of contract…

If you don’t agree with that age of consent, that’s your business. Just stop mischaracterizing what the policy does.

The consent policy does nothing to deteriorate family.

Then, maybe injecting the state into the bedroom doesn’t deteriorate intimate relationships between consenting adults(?).

It’s not analogous. The state isn’t injecting itself into medical decisions.

I think most people understand it almost by osmosis. See my response to Davis’s question.

This consent policy doesn’t diminish any of those things mentioned in your response.

Autumn, we’re not talking about Band-Aids or teeth cleaning here (and, BTW, most minors would not go to the dentist unless their parents dragged them there).

So?

If parents are competent and concerned with their child’s welfare, not just now but going on into adult life, then convince them. Otherwise, declare them unfit to decide.

Going on into adult life? What the actual fuck are you talking about?

I don’t care what the law says.

I am aware. It explains why you keep railing against what the law neither states nor does in practice and instead go off on silly, dramatized tangents.

This is a philosophical discussion. The law…

You seem to be under the impression that I am arguing because something is the law, it is valid/ moral/ ethical/ correct. I am not. I am pointing out that you are misrepresenting the policy and suggesting you should stop misrepresenting it.

It is a dunce to say that kids can’t sign virtually any other contract without parental cosignature, except in this one instance. Makes no sense whatsoever.

Medical care isn’t a contract.

You constantly use “consent” with regard to kids without using “informed consent.”

Do you not know how to form a cogent argument or do you just not care?

[Noel]

Wow! This is like watching The Thrilla’ in Manila.

When I was 15 I left home. I got a job moving furniture and later in the evening pumping gas after school. Rented a furnished bedroom for $25 a week. One of my teachers knew my situation and chose not to report me to Social Services.

One day I got into a fight, kid pulled out a knife and stabbed me in the gut. Blood all over the place. Someone called an ambulance. Took me to Jamaica Hospital in Queens. Medical staff immediately went to work on me despite my not telling them who my parents were or where I lived. They did not wait for “Parental Consent”. Next day Social Services showed up. As soon as their backs were turned I snuck out of the hospital.

I’m a parent. Two grown up children. I would like to think that if my kid needed medical care, at the age of 15, and I’m not around to “Consent” that medical care will be provided. Whether it’s a little boo-boo or trans care or a severed limb. Would be nice if someone picked up a phone and told me the specifics, because as a parent I do worry. I’m sure there are a lot people out there who would want to sue the doctor, the clinic, the hospital. Perhaps this is the reason for Oregon codifying this and making it Law.

But you guys get back to the match! I’ll get my popcorn…

[Davis]

Unseen, re “family”: I mean, I was looking for your take on it, not a copy and paste from chatgpt…but if that represents what you mean, I guess that will do. I’d also ask you what a “family” is, but you’ll probably copy and paste a chatgpt and I can do it myself.

Regardless, not sure why you are referring to the why of something is “important” for a group of people. I could do the same and talk about why banning books about gay people is important to fundamentalist Christians in the deep south or how misogynistic behaviour is important to people due to traditions/religious-beliefs in many developing countries. So what? That just says why there are demented policies or beliefs. Appeal to popularity? It sounds like it is important to you…so just say so.

Regardless, it seems Autumn has rightfully demonstrated that you’ve missed the point anyways and have shown a blatant misinterpretation of what the law is and how the policies work.

• This reply was modified 2 years, 10 months ago by Davis.

[Unseen]

Autumn wrote:

Medical care isn’t a contract.

Maybe it’s different up Canada way, but here in the states, unless you’re an unconscious person rushed into the ER, you don’t get treatment without signing a contract allowing the physician to treat you (along with a commitment to pay your bill).

As for the rest of it, we are obviously going to always disagree on this topic. I have learned that always wanting to have the last word can be a personality defcet. I’ll let you have the distinction if you want it.

• This reply was modified 2 years, 10 months ago by Unseen.

[Unseen]

Davis wrote:

Regardless, not sure why you are referring to the why of something is “important” for a group of people. I could do the same and talk about why banning books about gay people is important to fundamentalist Christians in the deep south or how misogynistic behaviour is important to people due to traditions/religious-beliefs in many developing countries. So what? That just says why there are demented policies or beliefs. Appeal to popularity? It sounds like it is important to you…so just say so.

Anyone who’s come from a strong and healthy family knows what the value of a family is. As for “What is a family?”, it is a group of people related to each other and bonded with each other (and I accept adoption as a way of being “related”) in a familial love relationship. So, I accept families headed by gay or lesbian couples as valid families. I don’t think counselors or advocates can be regarded as members of others’ families and I don’t think their actions are in any way based on love for their subjects the way a good parent’s love is.

I think a parent’s role is to foresee what a teen’s choice could well lead to down the road and that it may not make them nearly as happy as they think it will and to consider other options. Too many trans women turn out looking like men in drag, for example, and so the acceptance a teen boy may think will come by transitioning is possibly going to be not be all hummingbirds and rainbows. I don’t know if an advocate/counselor is going to level with them about the possible downsides and point out that they can wait until adulthood to make that decision as many have done. Teens are known for short-term thinking.

Anyway, if the approval of the parents is to be taken out of the picture, what harm do you see in a court declaring them unfit to maintain traditional parental control?

• This reply was modified 2 years, 10 months ago by Unseen.

[Author]

Posts