SC Senate Passes Bill Banning Affirmative Care For Minors

rjs330 · May 6, 2024

KCfromNC said:
They're both treatments used on children which might not have a two decade long proven track record, are not 100% certain to work, and might potentially have side effects. So the comparison seems apt, given that those were excuses previously brought up to ban one of the two.

If those aren't actually relevant reasons to do so, weird that posts would bring them up rather than explain the real reasons we should get the government involved in banning parents from these particular medical choices for their kids.

They are both treatments. You are correct on that. But that's where the comparison ends.

Children don't go to a cancer doctor and say, "doc I have cancer, I need chemo or I need an experimental drug to get rid of my cancer." The doctor doesn't say i affirm you and trust that you have cancer. How long have you felt that way? I see well let's get you started then. Here's your first prescriptions."

In reality the would not affirm the patient. They would not agree. They would take tests, and see what the tests say. And the tests would not be based solely on what the patient tells them, but on actual physical tests. Blood work, biopsies etc. Then if the tests come back negative the doc would tell the patient they do not have cancer. And cannot have cancer drugs, experimental or not. And they would tell the parent he kid cannot have because they don't have cancer. Even if the parent consents.

Which of course is tge opposite of the Affirmative Care model that is used on kids. And once again the WPATH files have proven even the parents don't understand what they are consenting to. Why you continue to ignore that is astounding.

Ana the Ist · May 6, 2024

KCfromNC said:
What other quotes were you basing your claim on?

Which claim? I've made a few at this point so if you could just be a little more specific.

KCfromNC said:
Looks like another post with lots of bluster to try and avoid the plainly stated reason

Again, that's just one legislator out of many who voted for the bill. It was selected, for folks like yourself, who already had assumptions about the motives of those passing such a bill. You believe that religious beliefs were the motive....and so a state senator mentioning his faith and how it impacted his vote is exactly what this article needed to grab your attention.

Confirmation bias gets reaffirmed, and you need not concern yourself with the messy facts about whether or not this treatment has real merit.

Ana the Ist · May 6, 2024

KCfromNC said:
If those aren't actually relevant reasons to do so, weird that posts would bring them up rather than explain the real reasons we should get the government involved in banning parents from these particular medical choices for their kids.

I'd say the biggest reasons are...

1. This isn't a life or death condition.
2. There's no good research on the long term effectiveness of the treatments, and poor research on short term effectiveness.
3. It's not clear what the desired goal of treatment is.
4. It appears that the diagnosis is entirely theoretical and without any substantial evidence.
5. Effects of treatment are increasingly shown to be lifelong and irreversible.
6. There's no justification for the treatments being given to children.

That's just off the top of my head though...I can probably come up with more if you want them.

rjs330 · May 6, 2024

Pommer said:
New information has been made available and I’ve shifted a wee bit in my position, what sort of heresy am I doing!?

Its NOT new infirmation. We've been telling you this for sometime. Pointing out therapists who have been saying this for a number of years, and showing you how the research used by WPATH GG as been found to be junk by systematic reviews and how other countries have moved away from it and you ignored it all. Now all of a sudden you've altered your opinion and calked it new information. Shifted as you say. Why have you ignored this for so long and suddenly after one article you decide to shift. What was it?

I'm glad you shifted by the way. It's a very good start, but I am baffled as to what took you so long and why you suddenly shifted.

Pommer said:
Someone who has been working in their field of study is concerned that the growth of that field might become corrupt because of an influx of money, (stemming from the hard-fought-for legitimacy), ought to be taken seriously.

Another thing we've been pointing out for some time now which has been ignored.

Pommer said:
Wow, your cynicism is touching.

I admit I have cynicism. It's tough not to be cynical after saying the same things as this woman and providing information from other therapists who have said the same thing. And providing all the same information even with MORE evidence than the therapist in the article provided only to have you ugnore it all. So yes I'm a bit cynical. Forgive me for it. I just sincerely hope you are really moving in the right direction. Time will tell I suppose.

Pommer said:
Subtlety and nuance aren’t everyone’s forte.

No it's not, but in reading the interview there doesn't seem to be a lot of subtelty in the therapists statements. There's quite a bit of clarity. So I wondering what part of the interview was full of subtlety and nuance that you found.

Pommer · May 6, 2024

rjs330 said:
Its NOT new infirmation. We've been telling you this for sometime. Pointing out therapists who have been saying this for a number of years, and showing you how the research used by WPATH GG as been found to be junk by systematic reviews and how other countries have moved away from it and you ignored it all. Now all of a sudden you've altered your opinion and calked it new information. Shifted as you say. Why have you ignored this for so long and suddenly after one article you decide to shift. What was it?

I'm glad you shifted by the way. It's a very good start, but I am baffled as to what took you so long and why you suddenly shifted.

Another thing we've been pointing out for some time now which has been ignored.

I admit I have cynicism. It's tough not to be cynical after saying the same things as this woman and providing information from other therapists who have said the same thing. And providing all the same information even with MORE evidence than the therapist in the article provided only to have you ugnore it all. So yes I'm a bit cynical. Forgive me for it. I just sincerely hope you are really moving in the right direction. Time will tell I suppose.

No it's not, but in reading the interview there doesn't seem to be a lot of subtelty in the therapists statements. There's quite a bit of clarity. So I wondering what part of the interview was full of subtlety and nuance that you found.

You’re invested a lot more in this issue than I am so any thing that doesn’t align with your stated position is going to tend to look like “opposition”.
While I might be able to admit a certain amount of “tribalism” in my arguments, some of my opinions are not fully formed and I am able to change my mind if the evidence warrants it.

But the article/interview makes clear that the trans-activist doesn’t want to end all treatments for trans-youth, only that the medical community should ought to come up with guidelines as to what treatment should be going to which patients…and that some patients might do better with less involvement with the medical community.

rjs330 · May 6, 2024

KCfromNC said:
Lots of words here, but I note that none of them are direct quotes like mine from the people involved in drafting the legislation saying that it was based on their religious beliefs.

Who chose the quotes to use? Are they the only things anyone said during this entire session on subject. After all this has been going on for months. How many legislators who supported this legislation were spoken with and what did they have to say? Was this reporter present during all the discussions going on?

It's quite laughable that you would think that what a reporter and their editors decide to print in a short article are the only things anyone ever said. You actually should know better.

rjs330 · May 6, 2024

Belk said:
Yet the people I'm discussing this with are the exact same crowd of people opposed to gay rights.

Cause you are in a Christuan forum. But I do wonder though if you even pay attention to the information actually proved to you. Information from NON-chrstian sources. Or are you so locked into your biases that you can't see that the information and sources aren’t actually Christian?

Belk · May 6, 2024

rjs330 said:
Cause you are in a Christuan forum.

No, there are plenty of Christians who are not opposed to gay rights.

rjs330 said:
But I do wonder though if you even pay attention to the information actually proved to you. Information from NON-chrstian sources. Or are you so locked into your biases that you can't see that the information and sources aren’t actually Christian?

Being Christian is not the relevant factor. The factor is are they accurate and do they reflect a good understanding of the subject matter. If they are then I am certainly open to change my view. For example I have come to the conclusion that there is likely some amount of peer pressure and societal factors in some cases of kids claiming to be transgender. We do need to be very careful on the treatments. Banning them outright, however, I still think is incorrect as there are cases were it is appropriate.

RileyG · May 6, 2024

Pommer said:
So let us allow the medical professionals determine the “best way forward”?

Correct, but it must be further researched before a minor suddenly decides “I’m trans.”

rjs330 · May 6, 2024

Belk said:
No, there are plenty of Christians who are not opposed to gay rights.

Yet you referenced Christians on this board. Your reference was specifically aimed at Christians. Don't waffle now.

Belk said:
Banning them outright, however, I still think is incorrect as there are cases were it is appropriate.

No one us banning them outright. Only certain things are banned. Such as experimental and harmful drugs. The unacceptable Affirmative Care model.
Kids can still go get therapy. They can have as much therapy as they want to work though all the issues they may be dealing with, all the way until they are an adult and then if they want medical intervention then deal with whatever consequences as an adult.

So the only thing being banned here is experimental and harmful drugs and harmful therapies.

Belk · May 6, 2024

rjs330 said:
Yet you referenced Christians on this board. Your reference was specifically aimed at Christians. Don't waffle now.

No, my reference was people opposed to gay rights. Their religion is not the defining criteria. If anything it is more associated with their political leanings,

rjs330 said:
No one us banning them outright. Only certain things are banned. Such as experimental and harmful drugs. The unacceptable Affirmative Care model.
Kids can still go get therapy. They can have as much therapy as they want to work though all the issues they may be dealing with, all the way until they are an adult and then if they want medical intervention then deal with whatever consequences as an adult.

So the only thing being banned here is experimental and harmful drugs and harmful therapies.

Like so many other things I find the idea of "small government except where I think others should be limited" to be a poor model.

rjs330 · May 6, 2024

Belk said:
Like so many other things I find the idea of "small government except where I think others should be limited" to be a poor model.

Who's proposing that model? I doubt very much you would find anyone on rhe small government side to be saying there should be no controls on the food we consume. I don't think anyone want to be poisoned by bad meat. This is the foolishness of your argument. Literally no conservative has ever claimed that small government means no regulations on anything including the medical field. Maybe in your fevered imagination but in reality no.

Just like your big government precepts don't mean you want the government involved in every facit and decision of your life. I think that would be a poor model as well.

RileyG · May 7, 2024

Belk said:
No, my reference was people opposed to gay rights. Their religion is not the defining criteria. If anything it is more associated with their political leanings,

Like so many other things I find the idea of "small government except where I think others should be limited" to be a poor model.

Well......not to ramble on and on.

The United Church of Christ ordained its first openly gay minister in 1972. There was the Metropolitan Community Church that was founded by a gay man in 1968 that was specially founded for gay and lesbians to worship God. Believe it or not, they are rather liturgical and offer the Eucharist regularly. The founder's mother was the first "straight saint."

It wasn't until 2003 when Gene Robinson was the first gay bishop of the Episcopal Church to be consecrated, and that caused a huge rift in the worldwide Anglican Communion.

It wasn't until the 2000s and 2010s that most mainline Protestant Churches accepted LGBT behavior. Even then, there are dioceses in the Episcopal Church that do not accept same-sex marriage, and individual congregations in the ELCA Lutheran Church that do not accept same-sex marriage.

I could go on about the Unitarian Universalists but they are no longer considered Christian by their own admission.

IceJad · May 7, 2024

rjs330 said:
Absolutely. The left will tell us sex and gender are completely separate things and one doesn't have anything to do with another. Then they use "sex assigned at birth". What they are saying is you are not born with a biological sex, but instead a doctor assigns it to you. Why do they use that terminology? It's because they want to leave the door open for the doctor to have made a mistake. That later you may decide that you were born the opposite sex because of your gender. Because gender decides your sex not biology. Well if that's the case then how is it that gender has nothing to do with sex? It's just another one of those non-sensical claims by the believers.

The irony in this is they usual argue that gender is a social construct.

While what they are doing is the definition of social construct in clear violation to reality. It's like telling gravity it doesn't exist if human choose to ignore it.

That is the part of the activism that drove me from a supporter (you can view some of my very old posts) to now an objector.

Like the Batman movie said: you either die a hero or live long enough to become the villain.

That's how I view the movement today going beyond the bounds of logical acceptance.

KCfromNC · May 7, 2024

Pommer said:
It’d be sweet if the USA could get on board with the Government funded healthcare that these other nations have adopted, then the power of that government-funding would ensure that treatments for various conditions were in-line with the top-echelon modalities (rather than mostly “market-forces”…).

I asked the same thing, and was told that no, we can't believe Europe's vast experience in that area because that's about things which the GOP doesn't approve of. But we need to unquestioningly believe them when one study questions the validity of a bunch of other research that had undermined far-right talking points about LGBT issues.

The whole "but but but Europe is doing it" argument a bit suspect.

KCfromNC · May 7, 2024

RileyG said:
One is used to treat cancer and the other is essentially permanent cosmetic surgery.

Not true. Remember, we're talking about the gender affirming care which is actually used on minors, not the made up stuff that far-right talking points claim happens to minors.

KCfromNC · May 7, 2024

RileyG said:
The two aren’t even related and I find that analogy incredibly offensive.

I guess acting offended is easier than addressing the points made in, say, post 151. Not more convincing, but certainly a lot less effort.

KCfromNC · May 7, 2024

rjs330 said:
Yes and they flip flop like a fish out of water. I believe someone would call it building a house on sand.

I see were to the point in the thread where far-right mischaracterizations of the arguments are batted around as a way to ignore what's actually being written.

KCfromNC · May 7, 2024

rjs330 said:
They are both treatments. You are correct on that. But that's where the comparison ends.

If you're just going to ignore the rest of my post I'll just restate the facts from it :

They're both treatments used on children which might not have a two decade long proven track record, are not 100% certain to work, and might potentially have side effects. So the comparison seems apt, given that those were excuses previously brought up to ban one of the two.

rjs330 said:
Children don't go to a cancer doctor and say, "doc I have cancer, I need chemo or I need an experimental drug to get rid of my cancer." The doctor doesn't say i affirm you and trust that you have cancer.

"Ask your doctor if Keytruda might be right for you", from their ad on youtube.

Thanks for adding another point to my list of similarities.

KCfromNC · May 7, 2024

Ana the Ist said:
Which claim?

The only one of yours I quoted. Keep clicking the little curly arrow until you get to it.

SC Senate Passes Bill Banning Affirmative Care For Minors

Well-Known Member

Aggressively serene!

Aggressively serene!

Well-Known Member

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Similar threads