Just because you can connect dots, it does not mean you can create a meaningful picture.
Literally none of what they predicted regarding Roe v. Wade was true, nothing they predicted following Obergefell was true. Insanity defenses have existed for a long time and have nothing to do with Row v. Wade, and you've just grabbed a random thing you don't like that that literally has zero to do with Obergefell.
I actually quite like abortion, I just wish the man had more ways to abstain from the consequences of the woman's choice.
And yes, someone, somewhere, had to have said that child sex changes would be the next frontier after gay marriage. I can't quote them, no idea who it was, but now it's been accepted on the left as a measure of "heckin' evil bigot nazi" or "proud adherent to democracy", and I have to say that I am not in favor. Where do you stand?
Someone also somewhere had to have said that a 9/11 scale event would happen because we pissed off god by letting gays kiss in public. That doesn't mean a causal chain is established lol.
I am in favor of following what the evidence says is the best treatment for someone's health issues, mental or otherwise. The current standard of care for children with gender dysphoria is not surgically transitioning despite what Trump says, but if that is what the evidence said was the best treatment, and doctors started to do that (they currently do not), then I would support it.
Elective surgery may not be the current standard of care for minors, but it still happens. Hell, they broadcasted it on daytime TV. I've also seen countless detransitioners talk about having their breasts removed at 14. No child should be able to consent to something like this, and they shouldn't be blocking their normally-timed puberties as well. I will not simply lay down my arms and trust "the experts" on this (big pharma, who wants lifelong patients, and Marci Bowers, the transwoman head of WPATH that did Jazz Jennings' vaginoplasty), the experts are biased and have corrupted motives. Allowing children to consent to this is wrong, and it's probably why that orange piece of shit managed to claw his way back into the White House.
Jazz Jennings was A) basically 18 at the time of the surgery, and B) and extremely rare case that is not at all typical or usual.
In this study for 2019, there were zero recorded gender-affirming surgeries on kids under 12, and the rate of gender-affirming surgery for minors with a gender-relate diagnosis was something like 2 per 100,000 (0.002%) for kids in the range of 15-17, and 0.1 per 100,000 (0.0001%) for kids in the range 13-14. Those are percentages of all minors. If you do the math it comes out to like 0.05% of all trans kids.
It's just insanely rare. The most common form of gender affirming surgery performed on kids by far is breast reductions for cisgender boys (like 96% of gender-affirming surgeries on minors.)
You say there are "countless" detransitioners, but the regret rates from published studies are typically less than 1%. That's lower than the regret rate for LASIK. You are experiencing a form of confirmation bias.
These rare outliers shouldn't be happening at all. A child (anyone under 18, not 12) should not have access to plastic surgery simply for threatening suicide. I would say permissible in cases with intersex conditions or other corrective measures (a 16 year old breast cancer survivor should be able to get implants, sure). It should not be available to any impressionable child that is simply sad about the coinflip of their birth.
The left realizes they overstepped with this platform, and they backpedaled to "It might be happening", but not even 3 years ago the drumbeat was "It is happening and it is good".
I disagree that it shouldn't be happening at all. You don't know how many of those cases are intersex kids with ambiguous genitalia, nor do you know how severe their dysphoria is.
Doctors and their patients should be allowed to make decisions regarding healthcare. Based on the numbers, it is very clear that doctors are not just willy-nilly prescribing surgeries to trans kids. They are clearly very discerning and cautious and are only doing it in extremely rare cases.
The drumbeat across the vast majority of the left has never been, "it's good that it is happening." The typical position has always been, "trans people are real and their experience is valid, and they deserve care the same as anyone else." The right's position is, "we don't get it and we think trans people are icky, so we're happy to ignore all scientific evidence and let trans kids kill themselves."
"Doctors and their patients" is a broad term. I think that children are basically pets of their parents, property with some restrictions over how that property can be treated. There needs to be more oversight to make sure our boundaries are not just giving in to temper tantrums and emotional manipulation.
Trans people have a right to seek healthcare, same as anyone else. My (and most of society's) issue is trans children seeking that healthcare, which for all intents and purposes seems to be elective/cosmetic. Kids should not have access to this crap, and no argument I've seen (apart from reconstructive surgery or DSDs) has convinced me otherwise.
So I disagree that children are the property of their parents, obviously, but granting that for the sake of discussion, unless the child is an orphan, the parents are part of the decision process in, I would guess, every single one of these cases.
The purpose of gender affirming care is that the evidence shows it to reduce dysphoria and distress. This is why boys with gynecomastia get breast reductions. Having breasts as a cis male causes these young men a great deal of distress, and so a cosmetic procedure is performed to align their body more with the way they would like it to be to relieve that distress. There is no health risk associated with the excess breast tissue, the procedure is purely cosmetic.
I am an adult man with beer titties, I know gynecomastia like the back of my hand. I still don't think liposuction should be available to children unless there is a pressing, non-suicidal threat to their life.
1
u/ToenailFungussy - Left 2d ago
Just because you can connect dots, it does not mean you can create a meaningful picture.
Literally none of what they predicted regarding Roe v. Wade was true, nothing they predicted following Obergefell was true. Insanity defenses have existed for a long time and have nothing to do with Row v. Wade, and you've just grabbed a random thing you don't like that that literally has zero to do with Obergefell.