Well, half the country is MAGA brainwashed and a huge chunk of the other half is pretty broken too. 

 

I'd say there really aren't many rationally minded people these days.

 

1 hour ago, TBideon said:

Well, half the country is MAGA brainwashed and a huge chunk of the other half is pretty broken too. 

 

I'd say there really aren't many rationally minded people these days.

 

 

The MAGA side is the only ones putting these crazy policies into practice.   

 

I'm not aware of any super progressive states actively forcing kids to change genders to play on different sports teams.   These kinds of things are extremely rare, unless you hang out in the MAGA echo chamber, where they will try to convince you that every other high school kid is trying to get into your bathroom. 

But MAGA legislatures are 100% forcing 11 year old rape victims to carry babies to term, or women to risk their lives to deliver a stillborn, unviable fetus.   

 

The vast majority of Americans are right in the middle and don't want any of this $hit.  But the gerrymandering and primary races force us to have to deal with it. 

4 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

I forgot, there is no moral redemption for any Republican in your view. All their babies must die a horrible death to atone for the evils of daring to disagree with your political opinions. As you have pointed out in the past, it is morally responsible to leave a pregnant woman on the side of the road to rot if she happens to be a Republican. 

 

Oh man, trotting out a blatant and gross lie from years ago about something I never said and you were warned about is pretty low, even for you. 

 

Maybe one of your resolutions for 2024 should be trying to debate the arguments presented, and not the endless straw men, fantasies and falsehoods you create. Just a thought. 

 

 

Edited January 1, 20241 yr by jonoh81

12 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

Oh man, trotting out a blatant and gross lie from years ago about something I never said and you were warned about is pretty low, even for you. 

Except you have pretty much agreed with the premise, so in that case it is not a lie, and you own it. 

Keep it on topic

8 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Except you have pretty much agreed with the premise, so in that case it is not a lie, and you own it. 

 

Nope. If you want to continue making baseless accusations, you can do it in private. How about you try to defend Republican legislation that actively harms LGBTQ+ kids instead. I don't think you can and why this is just a terribly obvious attempt at derailing the discussion. 

I gave DeWine credit for the veto, but I'm not going to simply ignore that the rest of the party wanted this to happen and will likely try to overturn the veto if they get a chance. Nor am I going to look the other way at all the rank and file who are clamoring for this and other extremism in their culture war. 

DeWine Vetos Anti-Trans Bill, Proponents of Equality Celebrate Victory

 

Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine on Friday vetoed HB 68, a bill that would have banned gender-affirming care in the state of Ohio and prevented trans female athletes from participating on women’s sports team in K-12 and college athletics. 

 

“I cannot sign this bill as it is currently written,” DeWine said, repeatedly asserting that the “government does not know better than parents.” 

 

The Ohio legislature passed HB 68 on December 13, sending it on to DeWine for his signature. The governor had 10 days after receiving the bill to make his decision. The Repubclian-led state legislature needs a 3/5s vote to override the veto. 

 

In the briefing, DeWine explained that he used those 10 days to have conversations with those affected including: bill sponsor Rep. Gary Click (R-Vickery), physicians and counselors who provide gender-affirming care, detransitioners and medical personnel he met during visits to children’s hospitals in Akron, Columbus and Cincinnati. 

 

More below:

https://columbusunderground.com/dewine-vetos-anti-trans-bill-proponents-of-equality-celebrate-victory-tbf1/

This legislation is just ignorance meets cruelty.  I thought that DeWine wants to do most of what was in the bill through well considered regulatory processes, if the legislature doesn't override.  If they do override, it's on them.  I will grant that when the COVID pandemic started, DeWine took serious health centered actions to try to control it, until the legislature and others harrassed him.

On 12/29/2023 at 5:40 PM, Brutus_buckeye said:

So are all Republicans evil still or is it more nuanced?

They passed the legislation.....you answer the question.

Dewines reasoning for veto is solid. where were all these "nuanced" republicans prior to this?  WHERE?

https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/politics/2024/01/05/mike-dewine-talks-transgender-health-care-after-house-bill-68-veto/72118289007/

 

I'm old enough to remember...*checks notes*... Monday when a bunch of people were saying DeWine was a reasonable guy because he vetoed HB68, and how I was chastized from some MAGAs about thinking Republicans will always eventually default to cruelty, bigotry, fear-mongering and anti-science BS. Didn't take quite as long as I thought it would. 

Let's be clear, while this particular order would affect relatively few people given that children are not receiving transition surgeries as a rule to begin with, DeWine made it clear he intends to also go after adult transition as well, which is what the real headline should be. I have no idea why he vetoed 68 if he was just going to go after it all anyway. 

5 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/politics/2024/01/05/mike-dewine-talks-transgender-health-care-after-house-bill-68-veto/72118289007/

 

I'm old enough to remember...*checks notes*... Monday when a bunch of people were saying DeWine was a reasonable guy because he vetoed HB68, and how I was chastized from some MAGAs about thinking Republicans will always eventually default to cruelty, bigotry, fear-mongering and anti-science BS. Didn't take quite as long as I thought it would. 

Let's be clear, while this particular order would affect relatively few people given that children are not receiving transition surgeries as a rule to begin with, DeWine made it clear he intends to also go after adult transition as well, which is what the real headline should be. I have no idea why he vetoed 68 if he was just going to go after it all anyway. 

 

I don't mean to be off-base here, but how is this going after adults? I think to most Americans, this sounds like a caring and reasonable approach. 

 

DeWine also announced Friday that his administration proposed rules to collect data on treatment for transgender adults and children and prevent "fly-by-night" clinics that don't provide adequate mental health counseling. To achieve that, the rule would require a comprehensive care plan for transgender adults and children that ensures they see an endocrinologist, psychiatrist and bioethicist.

 

 

11 minutes ago, YABO713 said:

 

I don't mean to be off-base here, but how is this going after adults? I think to most Americans, this sounds like a caring and reasonable approach. 

 

DeWine also announced Friday that his administration proposed rules to collect data on treatment for transgender adults and children and prevent "fly-by-night" clinics that don't provide adequate mental health counseling. To achieve that, the rule would require a comprehensive care plan for transgender adults and children that ensures they see an endocrinologist, psychiatrist and bioethicist.

 

It says right in your quote they intend to write rules on what transition care for adults will look like. Letting the medical community, instead of legislatures, decide best practices while taking patient's situation into context would be a more caring and reasonable approach, IMO.

 

They won't write rules on home schooling though.

6 minutes ago, Mendo said:

 

It says right in your quote they intend to write rules on what transition care for adults will look like. Letting the medical community, instead of legislatures, decide best practices while taking patient's situation into context would be a more caring and reasonable approach, IMO.

 

They won't write rules on home schooling though.

 

... like an endocrinologist and psychiatrist? 

1 minute ago, YABO713 said:

 

... like an endocrinologist and psychiatrist? 

 

Is Dewine or anybody in the statehouse either of those?

5 minutes ago, Mendo said:

 

Is Dewine or anybody in the statehouse either of those?

 

No - and they're not to be consulted under this order. 

 

I'm not disagreeing with you that this is in direct conflict with their stance on education, though, I'm only commenting on this bill. 

42 minutes ago, YABO713 said:

 

I don't mean to be off-base here, but how is this going after adults? I think to most Americans, this sounds like a caring and reasonable approach. 

 

DeWine also announced Friday that his administration proposed rules to collect data on treatment for transgender adults and children and prevent "fly-by-night" clinics that don't provide adequate mental health counseling. To achieve that, the rule would require a comprehensive care plan for transgender adults and children that ensures they see an endocrinologist, psychiatrist and bioethicist.

 

 

 

It's meant to create hoops for them to jump through, which will ultimately create hardship for adults too. It's similar in function to how abortion access was chipped away over time while technically remaining legal. 

12 minutes ago, YABO713 said:

No - and they're not to be consulted under this order. 

 

I'm not disagreeing with you that this is in direct conflict with their stance on education, though, I'm only commenting on this bill. 

 

Your quote from the article said Dewine intends to write rules on the standards for adult transition care. Legislatures don't write comprehensive rules on heart care. They don't require psychiatric care before doctors can prescribe Nordisk treatment.

 

@jonoh81 said it better above. They are setting up hoops for adults and children to jump through that they don't require for any other type of care (not that I'm suggesting they should).

Edited January 5, 20241 yr by Mendo

11 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

It's meant to create hoops for them to jump through, which will ultimately create hardship for adults too. It's similar in function to how abortion access was chipped away over time while technically remaining legal. 

 

I guess my counter to this would be that abortion is often more biologically "urgent" (for lack of a better term), than a transition. 

 

Whereas spending 5 visits to a doctor may render the point moot for a woman seeking an abortion, the same is not true here. 

 

I don't have an issue with individuals transitioning if that's what they prefer. But I think sometimes we look at the extreme depression and self-harm levels in the trans community and - out of empathy - want to fast track these decisions. However, I think a holistic approach to this issue is the best approach - meaning psychological as well as physical evaluations. 

 

Not that it's anyone's business, but I just got a text clearing me to share this story... 

 

My cousin - and one of my best friends growing up - wanted to transition and considered it from 2019 - 2021, going so far as actually scheduling a procedure. However, he backed out of the surgery and now claims it was the best decision of his life. Over some drinks at Thanksgiving, he told me he thinks he probably identifies as a male, but still participates in drag shows and says he feels just as comfortable there as he does in sweatpants on his couch. It turns out, it was working with a psychiatrist that made him a) love himself as he is, and b) recognize that gender dysphoria doesn't always need a physical affirmation. He had suicidal ideations when he was considering his transition, but has not had any dark thoughts in well over a year. 

 

I know this isn't a one-sized fits all solution, but I think deliberation has more value than we often think. That starts within support systems, though, allowing people to feel comfortable enough with us that these kind of things can be talked through. 

People should have to consult with a pediatrician, psychiatrist, and a bioethicist before having children.

 

And also an accountant.  In fact, mostly an accountant.

2 hours ago, YABO713 said:

 

Quote

I guess my counter to this would be that abortion is often more biologically "urgent" (for lack of a better term), than a transition. 

 

I think that's highly subjective for people who feel they are in the wrong body. Also, I think you just made a very compelling argument in line with what I'm saying. These people are against a biologically urgent procedure for women even if it threatens their lives, and are willing to go so far as to prosecute women who have miscarriages. So do you really think it would be all that much of a stretch that they would have any issue increasingly interfering with trans care if they don't believe it's biologically urgent or even ever necessary? 

 

2 hours ago, YABO713 said:

Whereas spending 5 visits to a doctor may render the point moot for a woman seeking an abortion, the same is not true here. 

 

I don't have an issue with individuals transitioning if that's what they prefer. But I think sometimes we look at the extreme depression and self-harm levels in the trans community and - out of empathy - want to fast track these decisions. However, I think a holistic approach to this issue is the best approach - meaning psychological as well as physical evaluations. 

 

No one is saying they should be fast-tracked. The standards for receiving any kind of permanent transitional care in the US are already very high across the board. These decisions are not made lightly or without due consideration for all options and circumstances. That's one of the reasons something like puberty blockers are important, as they allow younger people to explore how they feel under the guidance of medical and psychological professionals without any permanent risk. The things you think should happen have already always been happening. 

 

2 hours ago, YABO713 said:

Not that it's anyone's business, but I just got a text clearing me to share this story... 

 

My cousin - and one of my best friends growing up - wanted to transition and considered it from 2019 - 2021, going so far as actually scheduling a procedure. However, he backed out of the surgery and now claims it was the best decision of his life. Over some drinks at Thanksgiving, he told me he thinks he probably identifies as a male, but still participates in drag shows and says he feels just as comfortable there as he does in sweatpants on his couch. It turns out, it was working with a psychiatrist that made him a) love himself as he is, and b) recognize that gender dysphoria doesn't always need a physical affirmation. He had suicidal ideations when he was considering his transition, but has not had any dark thoughts in well over a year. 

 

Okay, but again, psychological evaluations already happen. The rate of regret and detransition is exceedingly low, lower than almost any kind of normal surgery, and studies have shown most of those who detransition do so because of severe negative environments and social outcasting, not necessarily because they are unhappy with the results. The current process does exceptionally well at screening people before anything permanent. 

 

2 hours ago, YABO713 said:

I know this isn't a one-sized fits all solution, but I think deliberation has more value than we often think. That starts within support systems, though, allowing people to feel comfortable enough with us that these kind of things can be talked through. 

 

And again, the current system isn't broken, so any additional roadblocks put up by politicians who have no idea what they're talking about only serve to harm the well-established process and the people in question.  The fact that your cousin didn't transition is actually an example of the system working as intended.

 

Edited January 5, 20241 yr by jonoh81

Ohio Bans Gender Transition Surgeries for Minors Despite None Actually Happening

 

Ohio Governor Mike DeWine has signed an executive order banning “gender transition surgeries” for transgender Ohioans under the age of 18 – which children’s hospitals repeatedly testified are not performed at any hospital or ambulatory clinic in the state.

 

DeWine recently vetoed Ohio House Bill 68 – an anti-transgender bill that would have banned access to healthcare for transgender youth and banned transgender girls from competing in sports from kindergarten through college.

 

Since then, DeWine has faced intense backlash from conservative Republican lawmakers, including former president Trump.

 

Ohio lawmakers plan to return from break to override the governor’s veto via a supermajority in the House and Senate.

 

During a press conference on Friday morning, DeWine defended his decision to veto the bill – which rejects the general medical consensus of every major medical organization in the world and is based on model legislation drafted by designated anti-LGBTQ+ hate groups. In its place, the governor proposed a set of “post-veto administrative rules,” restricting access to healthcare for transgender youth.

 

In addition to an executive order banning gender-affirming surgeries and surgical procedures for transgender youth without exception, the governor also issued a new set of administrative rules that could further restrict access to healthcare for even more transgender Ohioans, including adults.

 

More below:

https://columbusunderground.com/ohio-bans-gender-transition-surgeries-for-minors-despite-none-actually-happening-tbf1/

 

That's right folks...Ohio is #6 on the list of outflow to other states.   People are leaving and the Legislature is tackling these important issues facing NO ONE today.  

5 hours ago, Cleburger said:

That's right folks...Ohio is #6 on the list of outflow to other states.   People are leaving and the Legislature is tackling these important issues facing NO ONE today.  

 

Clearly a lot of fanatics within the Ohio legislature who actually believe children are getting walk-in sex change surgeries, but this also obviously plays very well with the base. Which says a lot about the base.

29 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

Clearly a lot of fanatics within the Ohio legislature who actually believe children are getting walk-in sex change surgeries, but this also obviously plays very well with the base. Which says a lot about the base.

However, there really is merit to waiting. This is a decision that someone can only make once in their life. It is reasonable that they should be an adult before making such a decision. It is a prudent thing to wait. 

42 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

However, there really is merit to waiting. This is a decision that someone can only make once in their life. It is reasonable that they should be an adult before making such a decision. It is a prudent thing to wait. 

Probably true.  But since none of this is happening, does the government really need to step in and ban it?  It seems like the government is trying to step in to a situation that parents and doctors have under control -- step back Big Brother! 

 

Which just makes this seem like Republicans are using issues like this to distract the public from their inability to solve real problems in Ohio, like gun violence, housing costs, education costs, and poverty.   Granted, none of those have simple solutions.  But Republicans seem to have no solutions and so go off and attack a minority population on an issue that isn't really a problem. 

3 hours ago, Foraker said:

But since none of this is happening, does the government really need to step in and ban it?  It seems like the government is trying to step in to a situation that parents and doctors have under control

Well it is obviously happening on some level, otherwise, why would there even be a debate about the matter at all. 

 

3 hours ago, Foraker said:

Which just makes this seem like Republicans are using issues like this to distract the public

Wedge issues like this stir emotions. So yes, of course it they are. They get people upset and create engagement, albeit in a negative way. Dems do this too. Some of the issues with the border are the Dem version of this. It is a classic political play by the GOP in this case, but the game is played equally well on both sides depending on the issue.

classic both sides response

18 hours ago, Foraker said:

But since none of this is happening, does the government really need to step in and ban it?  It seems like the government is trying to step in to a situation that parents and doctors have under control -- step back Big Brother! 

 

No, the government doesn't need to step in and ban it. Not sure if anyone's ever had a family member, friend, or colleague face this situation, but it's not something someone takes lightly or just decides to do on a whim. There's a reason why medical professionals of multiple varieties are involved. In many ways, the situation is similar to abortion in that deciding to seek an abortion is not a quick, easy, or rash decision despite what some posters here (and the party they support) would like you to believe.

 

It's quite simply the latest fear mongering by Republicans who will interfere with, ruin, and complicate an individual's life for the sake of stoking up their base. And they're helped not only by the orange kool-aid drinking, Bible touting (yet not actually reading) believers, but also by those making excuses for the "party of small government" to overreach. As if their behavior—from ignoring the will of the people in the statehouse to minimizing the January 6 damage—is normal or accetable.

 

Remember when Republicans whined endlessly about "Obama's death panels" (which, big surprise, never happened or were ever a thing)? Now we've got Republican male judges in deciding medical fates in the courts while women's lives hang in the balance. It's all about projection with them.

 

"Both sides" went out the window after Obama was elected and Republicans blocked him at every turn while shouting about birth certificates. Say what you want about the Democrats, but their party never tried to overturn a legitimate election and doesn't go out of its way to actively persecute people (despite the fantasies of so-called "Christians").

 

 

Ohio GOP Overrides DeWine’s Veto on Anti-Trans Legislation

 

The Ohio House of Representatives voted to override Gov. Mike DeWine’s veto of a bill that would prohibit gender-affirming care for trans youth, including hormone therapy and puberty blockers. 

 

The vote to override House Bill 68 was 65 to 28 during Wednesday’s session, which brought lawmakers back from winter break early. The bill, sponsored by State Rep. Gary Click, R-Vickery, would also prevent transgender athletes from playing women’s sports.

 

“Today marks yet another victory for women and children in Ohio,” Click said in a statement. “It is hard to fathom that we live in a society that would tell children that they need drugs and scalpels to live their authentic lives.”

 

A three-fifths vote of the members of the House and Senate is necessary to override the governor’s veto. 

 

HB 68 now heads to the Senate where it needs 20 videos to override DeWine’s veto. If both chambers pass the override measure, the bill would go into effect 90 days after the final vote. The next Senate session is Jan. 24 and the bill previously passed with 24 votes in the chamber. 

 

“This bill is about protecting children,” Ohio House Speaker Jason Stephens, R-Kitts Hill, told reporters. “It’s also empowering families and empowering parents. … There’s good people on both sides who see the approach differently.”

 

More below:

https://columbusunderground.com/ohio-gop-overrides-dewines-veto-on-anti-trans-legislation-ocj1/

I hope families of trans youth can safely move to a state that doesn't want to kill their children or let them exist peacefully. I feel bad for families without the means or ability to move. This sucks and it's a dark day for Ohio.

"There’s good people on both sides who see the approach differently.”

 

Nope, 

Every day I am more and more embarrassed to be an Ohioan.

34 minutes ago, TBideon said:

"There’s good people on both sides who see the approach differently.”

Fixed it.

Lets all keep in mind that just because we may disagree on a policy matter does not mean that the other side is evil or inherently bad. 

1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Fixed it.

Lets all keep in mind that just because we may disagree on a policy matter does not mean that the other side is evil or inherently bad. 

“A policy matter.”

 

How do you type this stuff with a straight face? You’re really out here in every thread trying to justify the targeted persecution of individuals, the blatant disregard for the will of voters, and the attempted overturning of legitimate election results as something justified or normal. You’re either “inherently bad” or just completely ignorant. 

Edited January 11, 20241 yr by Gordon Bombay
Toned it down for ya, Gram.

2 hours ago, TBideon said:

"There’s good people on both sides who see the approach differently.”

 

Nope, 

 

The fact that they can even say stuff like this is insane.  The Republicans want a war.  We should give them a war.  They have ruled the State of Ohio for decades and have nothing to show for it.  The state is just now a bigger West Virginia. While they tell families what to do with their children (biggest hypocrites), Ohio was ranked as one of the 10 least healthy states in the nation.  They are complete failures on every level.  They are desperate.

1 hour ago, Gordon Bombay said:

“A policy matter.”

 

How do you type this stuff with a straight face? You’re really out here in every thread trying to justify the targeted persecution of individuals, the blatant disregard for the will of voters, and the attempted overturning of legitimate election results as something justified or normal. You’re either “inherently bad” or just completely ignorant. 

So the question on the appropriate level of care for minor transgender children, that would be a matter of policy.  You and I may agree or disagree with what the legislature is doing but they are debating a policy matter. The legislature may be wrong in their policy decisions, and you can strongly feel that way, but again it is a policy matter.  What the legislature is not, despite what some people may claim, is a group seeking to punish and kill transgender children because they see them as somehow "bad" or "unworthy".  So I think conflating some type of moral argument into a policy matter is misplaced.

 

It is fair to call out the legislature for being wrong on an issue, but acting as if they are somehow doing this to punish those they do not like would not be a fair assessment of things and not productive when you are actually looking to seek productive policy

18 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

but acting as if they are somehow doing this to punish those they do not like would not be a fair assessment of things and not productive when you are actually looking to seek productive policy

 

This is just complete rubbish. Legislating against Transgender individuals and their families is absolutely, unequivocally part of their “culture war.”

 

You know it.

 

I know it.

 

To try and hide behind “this is just a matter of policy,” is completely disingenuous whether it’s a poster on UO doing it or an elected official. It’s simply unproductive and a waste of time, a political stunt targeted at vulnerable individuals to give red meat to the base. And this isn’t the only one—we keep seeing it with book bans, abortion, election results, etc. Hell, those are just the recent historical precedents for it. We’re not debating a matter of tax policy or transportation funding, these are real people whose lives are being upended for… what exactly? And people have the gall to still sit here attempt to diminish the real world harm being caused, or, to simply shrug and go “uhm, well, muh both sides!”

Edited January 11, 20241 yr by Gordon Bombay

1 hour ago, Gordon Bombay said:

We’re not debating a matter of tax policy or transportation funding, these are real people whose lives are being upended for… what exactly? And people have the gall to still sit here attempt to diminish the real world harm being caused, or, to simply shrug and go “uhm, well, muh both sides!”

I get it, you take it more personally, but that still does not diminish the fact that it is a policy matter and not a personal attack on people.

 

You argue that tax policy is matter of policy, but you can also apply the same personal arguments you are trying to apply to the transgender position. You can apply the same logic to transportation funding too. Tax policy and transportation funding also affect real people whose lives are upended for .... what exactly? 

 

The point is, that we need to remove the personal nature from the policy aspect. Disagreement is natural, but it is important to keep in mind that while policy decisions may have personal effects, they are not personal in nature and are part of a reasonable debate and discourse.

4 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Fixed it.

Lets all keep in mind that just because we may disagree on a policy matter does not mean that the other side is evil or inherently bad. 

 

And yet intentionally harming kids and people simply for being born differently is unquestionably and inherently bad and evil. 

Just now, jonoh81 said:

 

And yet intentionally harming kids and people simply for being born differently is unquestionably and inherently bad and evil. 

 

Just now, jonoh81 said:

 

And yet intentionally harming kids and people simply for being born differently is unquestionably and inherently bad and evil. 

Well that of course is your opinion. Others would disagree and argue that such bans are saving children instead of harming them. 

Hence why you have a policy debate. 

6 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

I get it, you take it more personally, but that still does not diminish the fact that it is a policy matter and not a personal attack on people.

 

You argue that tax policy is matter of policy, but you can also apply the same personal arguments you are trying to apply to the transgender position. You can apply the same logic to transportation funding too. Tax policy and transportation funding also affect real people whose lives are upended for .... what exactly? 

 

The point is, that we need to remove the personal nature from the policy aspect. Disagreement is natural, but it is important to keep in mind that while policy decisions may have personal effects, they are not personal in nature and are part of a reasonable debate and discourse.

 

I like how you think minorities should not take it personally when they have their rights and choices taken away. The level of flippant, unempathetic arrogance on display is on par with Trump's "get over it" after another elementary school child is gunned down. Just sickening stuff. Modern conservatism in all its horror. 

Edited January 11, 20241 yr by jonoh81

9 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

 

Well that of course is your opinion. Others would disagree and argue that such bans are saving children instead of harming them. 

Hence why you have a policy debate. 

 

Nah, it's not just my opinion. Bans on the affective treatment of a real medical condition is actively harmful and we know exactly how. Bans on people from participating in social activities because of that condition is tangibly cruel. The people that support this, that make excuses for it, are not good people. 

Edited January 11, 20241 yr by jonoh81

25 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

Nah, it's not just my opinion. Bans on the affective treatment of a real medical condition is actively harmful and we know exactly how.

Do we?? I think there is real debate out there on whether it is a good idea to transition minors at a young age or if it is better to wait until they are adults. While the narrative being pushed in the US may be more of the medicate and transition early, the European research and guidance is starting to state otherwise or at least urge caution in regards to this.  I would hardly call the science settled and certainly should call for prudence in the matter. I think policy decisions that call for prudence are far from Republicans or conservatives arguing they want trans kids dead.  Whatever echo chamber you are listening to regards to the matter, I suggest you probably expand your horizons some.

 

29 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

Bans on people from participating in social activities because of that condition is tangibly cruel.

I assume you are alluding to bans on males participating in female sports because the males identify as female? I think it is cruel to the female to have to compete against a biological male. I do not think anyone is denying a trans person the ability to particiapate in sports but they want to make sure the playing field is more level. An 20 year old male who participates as a female, no matter how many hormones that they are on will still have the biological body composition of a male and provide them with an inherent advantage over the biological females that they are attempting to compete against.  There are female divisions and classifications for a reason, and that is to level the playing field. If a male identifying as a woman chooses to compete, in the matter of fairness, he should compete on the mens circuit. There is nothing cruel or unfair about that. 

 

People who may disagree with you on issues can be good people. Most of them are. I think that is an important fact to remember. 

40 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

I like how you think minorities should not take it personally when they have their rights and choices taken away. The level of flippant, unempathetic arrogance on display is on par with Trump's "get over it" after another elementary school child is gunned down. Just sickening stuff. Modern conservatism in all its horror. 

You have a lot of hyperbolic anger without any real basis for your assertion.  Educate me. What rights of minorities are actually being taken away? How do people lose any rights that they currently have? There is nothing in the law that bans a person from transitioning if that is who they think their true self is, there is nothing that prevents an adult from being their best self. I guess explain to me where such rights are taken away here?

4 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Do we?? I think there is real debate out there on whether it is a good idea to transition minors at a young age or if it is better to wait until they are adults. While the narrative being pushed in the US may be more of the medicate and transition early, the European research and guidance is starting to state otherwise or at least urge caution in regards to this.  I would hardly call the science settled and certainly should call for prudence in the matter. I think policy decisions that call for prudence are far from Republicans or conservatives arguing they want trans kids dead.  Whatever echo chamber you are listening to regards to the matter, I suggest you probably expand your horizons some.

 

I assume you are alluding to bans on males participating in female sports because the males identify as female? I think it is cruel to the female to have to compete against a biological male. I do not think anyone is denying a trans person the ability to particiapate in sports but they want to make sure the playing field is more level. An 20 year old male who participates as a female, no matter how many hormones that they are on will still have the biological body composition of a male and provide them with an inherent advantage over the biological females that they are attempting to compete against.  There are female divisions and classifications for a reason, and that is to level the playing field. If a male identifying as a woman chooses to compete, in the matter of fairness, he should compete on the mens circuit. There is nothing cruel or unfair about that. 

 

People who may disagree with you on issues can be good people. Most of them are. I think that is an important fact to remember. 

 

Always so many words to basically let us know you don't know what you're talking about and are pulling false realities out of thin air to compensate for that ignorance. I don't think there's a single thing you said that is supportable. They are merely things you and a lot of other people believe. I'm not sure it would matter if you did know what you were talking about, though, because you will always defend the indefensible when it comes to the Right. 

 

4 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

You have a lot of hyperbolic anger without any real basis for your assertion.  Educate me. What rights of minorities are actually being taken away? How do people lose any rights that they currently have? There is nothing in the law that bans a person from transitioning if that is who they think their true self is, there is nothing that prevents an adult from being their best self. I guess explain to me where such rights are taken away here?

 

I can't reason you out of a position you didn't reason yourself into. If you don't think bans on medical treatments, for example, isn't an attack on the rights of privacy, choice and life, liberty and happiness, there's nothing I could say to convince you. 

12 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

 

Always so many words to basically let us know you don't know what you're talking about and are pulling false realities out of thin air to compensate for that ignorance. I don't think there's a single thing you said that is supportable. They are merely things you and a lot of other people believe. I'm not sure it would matter if you did know what you were talking about, though, because you will always defend the indefensible when it comes to the Right. 

 

False realities? This is legitimate debate and these are questions that are being discussed amongst all corners of society at this time. I suggest you take some time and explore the issue a little more detailed instead of reflexively falling back into your echo chamber.  The thing is, there are certainly a lot of questions on the subject.  You are trying to dismiss any alternative opinions and act as if the debate is settled because it suits your views when the reality of the situation is that it is far from settled (which is why you see legislatures taking up these issues. It is not because they want to hurt trans kids).   

 

This is not just some issue that has been manufactured on the right to "stick to the libs" or in your mind "kill trans kids" which is the reflexive demagoguery that you tend to go to when you do not have a strong argument. You have essentially argued that I have pulled facts out of thin air with zero basis when in fact it is the opposite.

 

As I mentioned earlier, there is not a scientific consensus around gender affirming care worldwide. While the US is pushing the gender affirming care issue more forcefully, there has been strong pushback amongst the European medical community.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2023-07-12/why-european-countries-are-rethinking-gender-affirming-care-for-minors

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2023/04/gender-affirming-care-debate-europe-dutch-protocol/673890/

 

So to take a position that the facts are settled and those who arguing against such proposals have zero basis in fact and science, is purely false. To dismiss any contrary opinion as just pulling facts out of thin air either demonstrates your own ignorance on the matter or your refusal to entertain any idea that is contrary to your perceived worldview.   

 

As I mentioned in my prior post, you have numerous medical professionals and experts in their field take the position that we should at least pause such treatments until we study them further and get a better understanding of them.  Just because this may "benefit" the Republican position that such gender affirming care may harm children does not mean it should be dismissed as false science, as you tend to do. At the very minimum, it should be considered and discussed in open debate and studied further. 

 

Regarding the sports issue, where there are bans of males not being able to participate in female sports (i.e. Leia Thomas). The international track community and other international sports organizations have recognized that trans athletes must participate in the division that conforms to their biological sex. 

https://www.npr.org/2023/03/24/1165795462/transgender-track-and-field-athletes-cant-compete-in-womens-international-events#:~:text=World Athletics Council%2C the governing,through puberty as a male.

 

THere is truly a debate on the issue, as the International boxing community (for some odd reason) has taken the opposite position which  has scared a number of female boxers fwiw. 

 

So again, there really is not yet a consensus around the sports issue (but I would contend that in this case, consensus is moving in favor of keeping biological males out of women's sports) so to dismiss the debate as settled is again a false premise. 

 

11 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

I can't reason you out of a position you didn't reason yourself into. If you don't think bans on medical treatments, for example, isn't an attack on the rights of privacy, choice and life, liberty and happiness, there's nothing I could say to convince you.

You apparently cannot defend your position if you can't answer a simple question to try and get me to understand where you are coming from and find even a shred of common ground.  To address this, I have never advocated for bans on medical treatments. However, I do feel that reasonable restrictions on such treatments for minors are appropriate and does not affect the rights on privacy, liberty and happiness. For one, minors do not have the same rights under the Constitution that adults do. Even the most conservative Republicans do not argue that the procedure should be outlawed for a consenting adult. This is solely about minors who do not have the capacity under the law to make such decisions. There is a big difference. 

 

I have never asked you to change my mind, nor do I expect to change your mind, but I do want to better understand your position and maybe see where I may have misunderstood the argument along the way. Neither of us are going to change our positions, but that does not mean that discussion cant lead to some common ground that may help understand the other better. 

Edited January 12, 20241 yr by Brutus_buckeye

20 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

So the question on the appropriate level of care for minor transgender children, that would be a matter of policy.  You and I may agree or disagree with what the legislature is doing but they are debating a policy matter. The legislature may be wrong in their policy decisions, and you can strongly feel that way, but again it is a policy matter.  What the legislature is not, despite what some people may claim, is a group seeking to punish and kill transgender children because they see them as somehow "bad" or "unworthy".  So I think conflating some type of moral argument into a policy matter is misplaced.

 

It is fair to call out the legislature for being wrong on an issue, but acting as if they are somehow doing this to punish those they do not like would not be a fair assessment of things and not productive when you are actually looking to seek productive policy

This also is evidence that the "small government party" isn't.  Republicans don't trust medical experts and insist on government intervention -- Republicans using government to protect the people who don't know they need protecting.  On another issue Republicans would be screaming about government intervention as "socialism."

11 minutes ago, Foraker said:

This also is evidence that the "small government party" isn't.  Republicans don't trust medical experts and insist on government intervention -- Republicans using government to protect the people who don't know they need protecting.  On another issue Republicans would be screaming about government intervention as "socialism."

Right wrong or indifferent, when it comes to children and minors, the government has always exercised influence in their decisions. There are laws that prevent children from buying and drinking beer, there are rules that prohibit minors from buying cigarettes. If a 7 year old was smoking cigarettes with her parents, you better believe the government and child protective services would be involved.  

 

So as much as the parties like to scream 100% parental rights whenever convenient, that has never been the case nor never will be. So at least recognizing that paradigm and the fact that children will always be treated as a different class than adults you have to give the benefit of the doubt to the fact that each side is relying on its own data and medical experts to do what they think is appropriate to protect children.  A blanket statement about Republicans not trusting medical experts is a completely false premise. They may not be trusting the "medical experts" that you would want to rely on, but that does not mean there are not "medical experts" who are qualified to provide a different opinion on an issue.  When it comes to the current debate, to claim that the "science is settled" on the matter is only just a method to close off legitimate discussion under a false and flawed pretense.

1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Right wrong or indifferent, when it comes to children and minors, the government has always exercised influence in their decisions. There are laws that prevent children from buying and drinking beer, there are rules that prohibit minors from buying cigarettes. If a 7 year old was smoking cigarettes with her parents, you better believe the government and child protective services would be involved.  

If you're going to force 11 year old rape victims to carry a baby to term, they might as well smoke and drink as well.   Thanks Ohio GOP!