All Things LGBTQ+ (5 Viewers)

[Farb]

Didn't really see a place for this so I thought I would start a thread about all things LGBTQ since this is a pretty hot topic in our culture right now

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/17/sup...y-that-refuses-to-work-with-lgbt-couples.html

• The Supreme Court on Thursday delivered a unanimous defeat to LGBT couples in a high-profile case over whether Philadelphia could refuse to contract with a Roman Catholic adoption agency that says its religious beliefs prevent it from working with same-sex foster parents.
• Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in an opinion for a majority of the court that Philadelphia violated the First Amendment by refusing to contract with Catholic Social Services once it learned that the organization would not certify same-sex couples for adoption.

I will admit, I was hopeful for this decision by the SCOTUS but I was surprised by the unanimous decision.

While I don't think there is anything wrong, per se, with same sex couples adopting and raising children (I actually think it is a good thing as it not an abortion) but I also did not want to see the state force a religious institution to bend to a societal norm.

 

[coldseat]

Fair enough. Let's try to have that adult conversation, as you said.

You asked before about Republican compromise policies, and I don't know of any. But I can tell you what I - Snarky Sack would be willing for the Republicans to compromise on:

Republicans (in general, with exceptions) want no medical or surgical treatment of transgender children under the age of 18. Democrats want no limits on medical or surgical treatment of transgender children.

Democrats have never stated such a position. I'm not even sure that as a party they have a position on this other than follow medical standards of care and let parents and doctors make the decisions

The obvious compromise would be an minimum age lower than 18, such as 14 for hormones, 16 for top surgery and facial/voice surgery, and 18 for bottom surgery. Those seem like the right number to me as a compromise to stop the worst excesses of what I consider an abusive way to treat children. It would be a compromise, because I prefer no such treatment until 18.

As compromises go, I don't think that's unreasonable or unworkable as I believe most transgender kids that access medical or surgical therapies probably don't do so until those ages. But I'd have to differ to somebody with more knowledge on the subject such as @UncleTrvlingJim.

Republicans in general would like for all public restrooms not single use, to be labeled for males/men or females/women, and for it to be against the law to go into the bathroom for the opposite sex, as it has been for many years in many states. Democrats want males or females, however obvious it is that they are males or females, to be able - by law - to use the bathroom of the gender as which the identify.

Several compromise ideas present themselves. For example, allow each business with restrooms available to the public to determine its own policy as to who uses which. Thus people can vote with their feet for or against businesses whose policies they do not like. Let school boards do the same, with voters voting with their votes and parents voting with their childrens feet to show approval or disapproval.

My favorite: Label bathrooms as either women or men, or as males or females. For women and men, that includes trans folk. For males and females, biology determines entrance. Thus people can make informed choices. A woman will know that if she goes into the "women" room that they may well be sharing it with a biological male who makes whatever degree of effort they chose to appear to be a woman.

I know you don't mean it this way, but I can't tell you how much this sounds like colored/whites bathrooms from the Jim Crow era. I wish this wasn't a huge issue for the right as I see no harm or evidence of harm with transgender women using women's bathrooms. I don't really think any of those solutions are really workable, because who policies all of that? Asking store owners to monitor and get involved in peoples bathroom use doesn't seem like a good or workable soliton. And none of that would stop someone who's intending to do harm to or rape a woman in a public bathroom. Maybe we can add unisex bathrooms for those who want to use them, but that seems like a awful lot of money and investment for something that isn't really a problem.

You have not, but Democrats have. So you are willing to compromise by allowing each sport to set its own policies. But Democrat politicians have shown no such willingness. Biden is I believe trying to make Title IX mean that males can play girls sports. That would completely violate the spirit of Title IX, IMO.

Biden's policy is much more nuanced then that (see below), It still hasn't been approved. I don't know that Democrats as a party have any stated position other than what Biden has proposed and the policy itself was response to Republican policies. The blanket bans on transgendered students participation have been passed by Republicans in Republican states. So, Republicans would have to step back from their already enacted policies around the county that ban all trans athletes for there to be compromise on this point and allow sports governing boards to make those decisions.

A Biden administration proposal to forbid outright bans on transgender athletes sparked outrage from conservative leaders while also angering trans rights activists who note schools could still prevent some athletes from participating on teams that align with their gender identity.

The proposed rule, which still faces a lengthy approval process, establishes that blanket bans, like those that have been approved in at least 20 states, would violate Title IX, the landmark gender-equity legislation enacted in 1972. But schools that receive federal funding could still adopt policies that limit transgender students’ participation, particularly in more competitive high school and college sports.

Under the proposal, it would be much more difficult for schools to ban, for example, a transgender girl in elementary school from playing on a girls basketball team. But it would also leave room for schools to develop policies that prohibit trans athletes from playing on more competitive teams if those policies are designed to ensure fairness or prevent sports-related injuries.

Biden sports plan angers transgender advocates, opponents

A Biden administration proposal to forbid outright bans on transgender athletes is sparking outrage not just from conservative leaders but from trans rights activists. They note schools could still prevent some athletes from participating on teams that align with their identity. The proposed...

apnews.com

See what I mean, @coldseat? Democrats dont' want to compromise because they truly feel that each and every position they take is an immutable moral imperative.

Republicans talk a good game about not compromising, but they nearly always give in.

You see @coldseat that some Republicans don't engage in honest debate and instead resort to generalities instead of using facts. The party of emotion over reason. Right?

I do think there are workable compromises on these issues that doesn't degrade the humanity of trans/non-binary people. But first we need the right needs to step back from the demonization and characterization of trans people as groomers and pedophilias and recognize their basic human dignity.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Thank you for posting those. I have read some of them already having been shown them by other posters on other forms.

As I said already, all such studies that I have been shown, including those you just showed me, turn out not to be clinical experimental studies. These type studies rely on self reports. They have no control group ie people who were not given puberty blockers that can be compared to those who were given puberty blockers.

That's not exactly true - a number of studies I mentioned are comparing outcomes between those who did get medical care as a minor and those who did not.

Doesn't mean that studies like that are completely meaningless. It means that they are not really evidence for anything other than the researchers found a group of people to say that they're happy with the treatment they got.

It's more than that -- they also did not find a group of people who were unhappy with their care, or who came out worse. And if you read the studies and the peer review notes, you'll notice that the sample populations are not self selected. And the authors usually note how the sample population mimics or does not, and how they account for that in their conclusions.

So, basically, it should be noteworthy that researchers have not found significant populations that are worse off after receiving care. It of course should be noted that in most of these studies there are decent number of cases that are neither worse off nor better off.

When researchers do a valid experimental clinical study in which the control group is given a placebo by the double blind method and there is true statistical randomization, then the results will be evidence. For all I know, they may well have been such studies but or ignored because the results were not what the researchers wanted.

The very first article I posted mentioned this. Basically, best practices for bioethics does not recommend putting people in control groups for mental health care, it would never pass a review board for a proposed study right now.

And you still haven't addressed the real issue -- why do you think this is a valid process for determining medical care? A bunch of people on a message board most of whom have no clincal or research background, arguing over studies and then voting on what other people should do.... does that sound like a good process?

Basically, imo, the best process for which procedures get approved or not, is done by medical review boards made up of medical professionals in the specific field of medicine related to the primary condition being treated. They should base their decisions off of peer reviewed medical studies, and be consistent with their hippocratic oaths. Which is what is happening now.... why do you think a bunch of internet yahoos making proclamations is a better solution?

Now if you think there's something wrong with the process we have in this country for approving and recommending medical care -- I think that's always open for discussion. Continuous process improvement is crucial to improving outcomes.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Sadly, yes. In far too many cases, they are doing exactly that. I agree with your implication that mental health concern should be addressed through mental health treatment such as therapy. After several years of that, then there might be enough evidence about the particular case to justify chemical or Surgical treatment.

That has not been my experience at all... both with my own kid, and the support groups we go to... there hasn't been a single minor who has had surgery, or had a doctor who has recommended it. In the real world, and not reactionary social media and news channels, doctors and therapists are exceedingly cautious when it comes to this stuff.

There were 56 gender reassignment surgeries of minors in the US between 2019 and 2021, and 776 mastectomies. None under the age of 13.

And given that I know how cautious most doctors and insurance companies are (because they can still get sued), I would think that the cases where this was done are more likely to be because of the specific cases that were requested.

Again, that doesn't mean they are never wrong, but that they are following a process designed to create the best outcome.

 

[LA - L.A.]

That has not been my experience at all... both with my own kid, and the support groups we go to... there hasn't been a single minor who has had surgery, or had a doctor who has recommended it. In the real world, and not reactionary social media and news channels, doctors and therapists are exceedingly cautious when it comes to this stuff.

There were 56 gender reassignment surgeries in the US between 2019 and 2021, and 776 mastectomies. None under the age of 13.

And given that I know how cautious most doctors and insurance companies are (because they can still get sued), I would think that the cases where this was done are more likely to be because of the specific cases that were requested.

Again, that doesn't mean they are never wrong, but that they are following a process designed to create the best outcome.

I knew the number of actual surgeries for transgender minors was low. I didn't know it was that low.

In light of those numbers, it seems odd for someone to claim that wanting to prohibit surgeries on intersex infants is just a red herring.

Intersex: What Is Intersex, Gender Identity, Intersex Surgery

Being intersex means having anatomy that doesn’t fit into a male/female sex binary. Most intersex people are healthy and surgery isn’t necessary.

my.clevelandclinic.org

An estimated 1 in 100 Americans is intersex. Around 2% of people worldwide have intersex traits.

In the past, children who were intersex have been given surgery to make their genitals match the sex they were assigned at birth or to remove reproductive anatomy (like gonadal tissue) that doesn’t match their assigned sex. These intersex surgeries often take place before a child is 2 years old.

More recently, people who are intersex and advocates have spoken against intersex surgeries, calling them unnecessary. They want parents to let their children choose whether to get surgeries or treatments — and which ones — when they’re old enough to make that choice.

Many organizations, including the American Academy of Family Physicians, support intersex people in making decisions about their bodies. This means waiting until a person is old enough to give informed consent.

Even though surgery on intersex infants used to be common, parents and the medical community have slowly been phasing out surgeries on a voluntary basis. That doesn't fit the image of parents and doctors wanting to have children surgically altered.

Fewer babies born in U.S. in 2022, and teen birth rate hit record low, CDC reports

The decline in births is "a very small difference" from the year before.

www.cbsnews.com

There were fewer babies born in the U.S. in 2022 compared to 2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported Thursday, suggesting that a rebound in births following the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic appears to have ended.

An estimated 3,661,220 babies were born nationwide in 2022, according to an initial analysis of data from birth certificates issued last year. That is less than a 1% decrease from 2021.

The math works out to about 36,612 intersex people born every year in the US. Fortunately, fewer of those babies are surgically altered each year. I think that's for the best.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I knew the number of actual surgeries for transgender minors was low. I didn't know it was that low.

In light of those numbers, it seems odd for someone to claim that wanting to prohibit surgeries on intersex infants is just a red herring.

Intersex: What Is Intersex, Gender Identity, Intersex Surgery

Being intersex means having anatomy that doesn’t fit into a male/female sex binary. Most intersex people are healthy and surgery isn’t necessary.

my.clevelandclinic.org

Even though surgery on intersex infants used to be common, parents and the medical community have slowly been phasing out surgeries on a voluntary basis. That doesn't fit the image of parents and doctors wanting to have children surgically altered.

Fewer babies born in U.S. in 2022, and teen birth rate hit record low, CDC reports

The decline in births is "a very small difference" from the year before.

www.cbsnews.com

The math works out to about 36,612 intersex people born every year in the US. Fortunately, fewer of those babies are surgically altered each year. I think that's for the best.

I should clarify that the numbers I provided were only for those with gender dysphoria - not intersex patients. But yes, it's very low. There are already guidelines governing this sort of thing, and surgery is generally recommended to wait until at least 18 and in some cases longer depending on a whole host of factors.

As far as intersex patients go, the recommendation is to wait for a while before doing surgical corrections of ambiguous genitalia, but also note that intersex isn't just because of ambiguous genitalia - it can refer to hormonal issues, chromosomal traits, or even superfluous organs (men with fallopian tubes, but outwardly they appear completely male, so no surgery required).

 

[RobF]

Eh, just ignore them. All they're doing is taking replies as an opportunity to repeat their already addressed irrational rhetoric.

Just watch, they'll probably reply to this going, "Oh, where did anyone address <insert already addressed irrational rhetoric>" in an effort to do exactly the same thing, again. Probably with another shoddy rabble-rousing YouTube video.

Having caught up on the last few pages, I feel the above bears repeating.

You've all stated the facts and reality clearly. If someone can't, or refuses, to grasp it, no amount of indulging them is going to help.

 

[LA - L.A.]

I should clarify that the numbers I provided were only for those with gender dysphoria - not intersex patients. But yes, it's very low. There are already guidelines governing this sort of thing, and surgery is generally recommended to wait until at least 18 and in some cases longer depending on a whole host of factors.

I read what you wrote as pertaining specifically to surgeries being specific to children with gender dysphoria. I was just adding the needs and current treatment of intersex children to what you said. I believe you care about them too, so it wasn't directed at you.

As far as intersex patients go, the recommendation is to wait for a while before doing surgical corrections of ambiguous genitalia, but also note that intersex isn't just because of ambiguous genitalia - it can refer to hormonal issues, chromosomal traits, or even superfluous organs (men with fallopian tubes, but outwardly they appear completely male, so no surgery required).

Yeah, I believe there's around 40 different known ways that intersex manifests. Forgive me, if that's not the correct terminology.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Having caught up on the last few pages, I feel the above bears repeating.

You've all stated the facts and reality clearly. If someone can't, or refuses, to grasp it, no amount of indulging them is going to help.

Thanks for that reminder. I lost sight of that over the past couple of days.

 

[Snarky Sack]

I knew the number of actual surgeries for transgender minors was low. I didn't know it was that low.

In light of those numbers, it seems odd for someone to claim that wanting to prohibit surgeries on intersex infants is just a red herring.

Intersex: What Is Intersex, Gender Identity, Intersex Surgery

Being intersex means having anatomy that doesn’t fit into a male/female sex binary. Most intersex people are healthy and surgery isn’t necessary.

my.clevelandclinic.org

Even though surgery on intersex infants used to be common, parents and the medical community have slowly been phasing out surgeries on a voluntary basis. That doesn't fit the image of parents and doctors wanting to have children surgically altered.

Fewer babies born in U.S. in 2022, and teen birth rate hit record low, CDC reports

The decline in births is "a very small difference" from the year before.

www.cbsnews.com

The math works out to about 36,612 intersex people born every year in the US. Fortunately, fewer of those babies are surgically altered each year. I think that's for the best.

Just out of curiosity, why do You think That it is for the best to surgically alter fewer children?

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Just out of curiosity, why do You think That it is for the best to surgically alter fewer children?

Medically speaking it's because it's hard to tell in infants how everything is going to be lined up and to allow the kid a chance to decide for themselves. Gender identity doesn't necessarily firm up until closer to puberty, so this allows the kid a say in how they want to be viewed. There isn't a consensus yet on when is exactly the best time to do it, but generally most seem to choose to do it when they can talk and verbalize but before puberty, although some who aren't sure wait longer.

 

[Snarky Sack]

You need to re-watch The Crying Game, because that's not what happens and it's not what the movie is about. My attempt at satire stemmed from what actually happens in the movie and what the movie is really about.

I guess your misremembering of the movie is why your mind raced straight to thinking that I was specifically talking about you and I was implying you secretly seek out trans women for sex. I can't fathom any other reason why your mind would rush straight to that thought.

Just reassure yourself that the world doesn't revolve around you and that not everything said on here is about you.

Again, I asked you several times what it was that you did mean. I have to assume by your continued refusal to answer that simple question that you are embarrassed that you said it. That's not a bad thing, any decent person would be embarrassed to have said something like that.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Medically speaking it's because it's hard to tell in infants how everything is going to be lined up and to allow the kid a chance to decide for themselves. Gender identity doesn't necessarily firm up until closer to puberty, so this allows the kid a say in how they want to be viewed. There isn't a consensus yet on when is exactly the best time to do it, but generally most seem to choose to do it when they can talk and verbalize but before puberty, although some who aren't sure wait longer.

So you agree that some doctors in the past were too quick to go to the surgical options?

 

[MT15]

Having caught up on the last few pages, I feel the above bears repeating.

You've all stated the facts and reality clearly. If someone can't, or refuses, to grasp it, no amount of indulging them is going to help.

You’re very correct, yet, I don’t like letting disinformation lie there unchallenged. Silence is tacit approval.

 

[MT15]

So you agree that some doctors in the past were too quick to go to the surgical options?

he is talking about intersex cases where the doctors used to decide which way to go in infancy. Not what you are talking about - which is denying vulnerable teens gender affirming care.

 

[Snarky Sack]

he is talking about intersex cases where the doctors used to decide which way to go in infancy. Not what you are talking about - which is denying vulnerable teens gender affirming care.

I said when intersex was brought up that I was talking about medicalization and surgicalization of the typical gender confusion experienced by children, and not about intersex, which is a completely different issue.

Right here:

All Things LGBTQ+

Didn't really see a place for this so I thought I would start a thread about all things LGBTQ since this is a pretty hot topic in our culture right nowhttps://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/17/supreme-court-sides-with-catholic-adoption-agency-that-refuses-to-work-with-lgbt-couples.htmlThe Supreme...

madaboutpolitics.com

But they insisted on talking about intersex, so I had a couple of questions for them.

I expect no real answers, of course. If my questions make them think about why they cannot answer questions, that is enough for me.

 

[MT15]

I said when intersex was brought up that I was talking about medicalization and surgicalization of the typical gender confusion experienced by children, and not about intersex, which is a completely different issue.

Right here:

All Things LGBTQ+

Didn't really see a place for this so I thought I would start a thread about all things LGBTQ since this is a pretty hot topic in our culture right nowhttps://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/17/supreme-court-sides-with-catholic-adoption-agency-that-refuses-to-work-with-lgbt-couples.htmlThe Supreme...

madaboutpolitics.com

But they insisted on talking about intersex, so I had a couple of questions for them.

I expect no real answers, of course. If my questions make them think about why they cannot answer questions, that is enough for me.

I was telling you what Jim was referring to. He was referring to the surgical procedures that used to be more common on infants than they are now. Not gender-affirming care for teens. You took his statement about surgeries performed on intersex infants, and tried to turn it around by asking him this:

So you agree that some doctors in the past were too quick to go to the surgical options?

I was merely pointing out that you and he are not talking about the same thing.

 

[Snarky Sack]

I was telling you what Jim was referring to. He was referring to the surgical procedures that used to be more common on infants than they are now. Not gender-affirming care for teens. You took his statement about surgeries performed on intersex infants, and tried to turn it around by asking him this:




I was merely pointing out that you and he are not talking about the same thing.

We are talking about the same thing.

I was talking about surgeries on intersex children in that question. It was LA - L.A. who I asked why he thought that it was for the best that fewer children are surgically altered. He actually said "babies" so I knew he did not mean trans kids.

Jim responded to my question to LA - L.A. in a way that it was obvious that he was talking about intersex, not trans. So was I when I asked LA - L.A. the question.

I knew that intersex was what Jim meant, and that was what I asked Jim about. We were on the same page as far as I know.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Just out of curiosity, why do You think That it is for the best to surgically alter fewer children

For the same reason as UncleTrvlingJim's explanation below and he stated much better than I could.

Medically speaking it's because it's hard to tell in infants how everything is going to be lined up and to allow the kid a chance to decide for themselves. Gender identity doesn't necessarily firm up until closer to puberty, so this allows the kid a say in how they want to be viewed. There isn't a consensus yet on when is exactly the best time to do it, but generally most seem to choose to do it when they can talk and verbalize but before puberty, although some who aren't sure wait longer.