06-08-2024, 06:55 PM
I feel kind of bad in that this conversation is fascinating to me, but somewhat off the mark as it is more general than specific to the thread topic. I'd like to respect the OP and not get into the many aspects into which this could veer.
Perhaps a new thread?
I get the idea about "right-wing wet dream of misinformation" completely. It happens so much now (thank you 'think-tank' media) that it's almost inescapable. But, such 'media story' productions are losing their traction lately... let's hope that continues.
But I think there is a mischaracterization in play in your last paragraph. The care which we should be discussing is medically necessary gender remediation... what's illegal in those states is performing it without the recommendation of a doctor. It seemed prudent to me since surgical gender-reassignment is a one way street, and is a sterilization process... not something a minor should be undergoing because "they just feel like it," (and they have thousands of dollars to burn.)
I say doctor 'recommendation' because I believe that affirms it as a valid medical need...I don't say doctor "approval" because a doctor's 'approval' isn't how 'medical necessity' is defined. Doctor's can "approve of" many things, that doesn't constitute a need.
That's the focus of the legal "criminalization' characterization.
Some media (one side of it anyway) insists on portraying the constraint as tyrannical... but in what way is it tyrannical to wait until the patient's decision are strictly their own, with an understanding that there's no going back, changing your mind, or blaming someone else for the choice to render your body reproductively broken. I'm not saying - and neither is the law - that it's not your right to do it, but not at some clinic "on the sly" before you are even fully grown.
But nevertheless... I think that criminalization angle is about doctors being ultimately accountable for what they do... not the patient. I call it "activist marketing" at work to consider it otherwise.
Perhaps a new thread?
I get the idea about "right-wing wet dream of misinformation" completely. It happens so much now (thank you 'think-tank' media) that it's almost inescapable. But, such 'media story' productions are losing their traction lately... let's hope that continues.
But I think there is a mischaracterization in play in your last paragraph. The care which we should be discussing is medically necessary gender remediation... what's illegal in those states is performing it without the recommendation of a doctor. It seemed prudent to me since surgical gender-reassignment is a one way street, and is a sterilization process... not something a minor should be undergoing because "they just feel like it," (and they have thousands of dollars to burn.)
I say doctor 'recommendation' because I believe that affirms it as a valid medical need...I don't say doctor "approval" because a doctor's 'approval' isn't how 'medical necessity' is defined. Doctor's can "approve of" many things, that doesn't constitute a need.
That's the focus of the legal "criminalization' characterization.
Some media (one side of it anyway) insists on portraying the constraint as tyrannical... but in what way is it tyrannical to wait until the patient's decision are strictly their own, with an understanding that there's no going back, changing your mind, or blaming someone else for the choice to render your body reproductively broken. I'm not saying - and neither is the law - that it's not your right to do it, but not at some clinic "on the sly" before you are even fully grown.
But nevertheless... I think that criminalization angle is about doctors being ultimately accountable for what they do... not the patient. I call it "activist marketing" at work to consider it otherwise.
