OK, we have now sent our own letter. Lisa, I can't thank you enough for your superb, fact-filled letter. I was feeling stymied on how to do this, and you broke the logjam. PS, if anyone needs or wants "opener" template to grab from, here is how Josie and I opened our letter to our senator and assemblymember:
We are writing to express our concerns about A6761/S8352, as currently proposed. We understand a key purpose of these bills is intended to fill the important purpose, with which we agree, of assuring homeless youth can get the medical and psychological services they need. With nearly 120,000 thousand homeless students in New York City alone, it’s clear how important this is. Our concern relates solely to the inclusion of “gender-affirming care” within the rubric of the bills, as explained more fully below.
First, let us introduce ourselves: we are staunch Democrats and lesbians in our 70s. Here’s a little more about us:
Josie Holford is a retired educator from a family of educators who has taught in London, New York City, and New York State. She has taught every level from 4th grade to freshman college and has served as middle and high school division director, head of school, and trustee. She continues to be active in advising school boards and educators and has written several articles relating to sex and gender issues on her blog and elsewhere, of which this is one: https://intrepidednews.com/gender-identity-ideology/
Susan Scheid is a retired attorney whose legal work included representing the labor unions AFSCME, ACTWU, and the WGA East. She then worked as an assistant State Attorney General in the Charities Bureau under Robert Abrams, after which she moved into health care-related law, with particular focus on health care provided to underserved communities. She was Counsel to Mayor Dinkins’ Office of Medicaid Managed Care under Florence Frucher, then Vice President for Provider Relations at The Bronx Health Plan, and finally, until retirement, in private practice providing legal services to several FQHCs and other CBOs.
In recent years, we have become increasingly concerned about issues related to sex and gender. We have done our best to become as knowledgeable as possible, by reading widely and listening and talking with a wide variety of people with expertise and experience. Out of that,
we are concerned that there is insufficient understanding of what “gender-affirming care” consists, and particularly how it is presently practiced. In particular, present practice unfortunately often includes rushed and improper diagnoses of children who are autistic, have multiple co-morbidities, and/or are simply “gender-non-conforming” many of which, if properly supported through the troublesome time of puberty, would likely grow up to be gay or lesbian, as we are.
We commend to you, as starting points for reading: Pamela Paul’s New York Times piece dated February 2, 2024, “As Kids, They Thought They Were Trans. They No Longer Do,” as well as the many excellent links within that piece. We also highly recommend “Time to Think: The Inside Story of the Collapse of the Tavistock's Gender Service for Children,” by Hannah Barnes, a scrupulously researched and fair-minded book on the problems currently endemic to the practice of gender-related care for children—problems which exist in the US, Canada, and across Europe as well.
As noted in the Paul article:
“’The population has changed drastically,’ said Edwards-Leeper, a former head of the Child and Adolescent Committee for the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, the organization responsible for setting gender transition guidelines for medical professionals.
“For these young people . . . ‘you have to take time to really assess what’s going on and hear the timeline and get the parents’ perspective in order to create an individualized treatment plan. Many providers are completely missing that step.’”
Finally, one of the people from whom we have learned an enormous amount is Lisa Selin Davis, a longtime “leftie” who lives with her husband and two school-age children in Brooklyn and who currently writes on Substack under Broadview.
As Lisa wrote in her letter to her own assemblyperson and state senator: [then we quote extensively from Lisa's letter, starting from "for the past three years"], before closing with
We would be happy to talk to you more about this further and endeavor to answer any questions you may have.
Thank you for your consideration and for all your hard work in our behalf.
Thanks, Lisa. With respect to broken bodies, it is vital to emphasize that the treatments, both medical and surgical, may have enduring and irreversible impacts on the bodies, minds and souls of these understandably confused young people. The gender-affirming complex has not been altogether upfront on this subject.
Thank you, Lisa, for an excellent, well-researched letter, which I will share with family and friends in New York - and many of your arguments and sentences can be used elsewhere, which is a gift. I'll admit, I flinched a little at "some young people have been helped by transition—as have many adults". GBM puts it so well below. As parents, we worry that those young people are only "helped" for now...there is still so little research and evidence around the long-term impacts of medical transition, let alone, of the underlying belief system on, as GBM puts it, their "minds and souls."
It’s great that you are doing that, and this New Yorker thanks you. We just sent the info and our letter to ~30 NY people who we hope might be receptive to sending their own. Of course, the net on such asks is usually small to none, but I am hoping this coming on the heels of the Paul op-Ed might have awakened a few more people from their deep slumber. We shall see . . .
FYI, and perhaps related, there are two more pieces in the NYTs worth noting—and they are not easy to find. First, if you search Pamela Paul and go to the tab “latest,” you will find an excellent follow-up to her Sunday Op-Ed. Also, on 2/2, the Times Opinion editor weighed in on Paul’s .Op-Ed, and while I doubt many here would join in her general perspective, the key takeaway I see is that she is in full support of Paul’s explorations. Here’s how she ends the article (link to article follows):
Given the state legislative fights over trans Americans and their civil liberties and access to medical and psychological care, we have published many columns and guest essays from health professionals and activists on issues affecting trans people, as well as a focus group last year hearing from trans Americans about their lives. In my experience, trans issues are a topic that inspires a range of partisans, all arguing that their point of view is correct and often demonizing people who don’t agree with them. The voices of the people most directly affected get lost in the arguing.
It’s a loss for real conversation, especially as more and more of us want to know more about the journey that some people have been on with gender identity. If we listen to trans kids and adults talk about their experiences and hopes and if we listen to people who once thought they were trans and now say they are not, I think we will only learn more and approach these struggles and questions with a greater degree of humanity, nuance and empathy.
Lisa, if you're actually trying to influence votes, this is way too long. No recipient is going to read past the 3rd paragraph, if that. You need to get to your main point much sooner if you want to have an impact. Providing specific edits to the legislation in paragraph 1 is a good way to get your point across.
To the hive mind here: what do you think the appropriate resolution is to fix this legislation? For example:
>except GAC completely from coverage under the bill
>except GAC from coverage under the bill unless in the context of a properly designed clinical study with proper guardrails around who is eligible to participate
>except GAC from coverage under the bill until such time as a properly conducted systematic review determines that substantial evidence exists for provision of GAC and, if so, practice guidelines have been promulgated and necessary enforcement mechanisms are in place, funded, and employed to assure those guidelines are being followed
>except GAC from coverage under the bill except for puberty blockers and x-sex hormones for minors at least 16 years of age
>same as any of the above, but allow continuation of GAC that is already in progress
The first one. GAC is cosmetic surgery, and should be an exception to this bill, just as breast enlargements, Brazilian Butt Lifts, face lifts, or rhinoplasties would be exceptions. While it is theoretically possible that someone might be a bit happier if they have these cosmetic interventions to appear as the opposite sex (I have often said that my life could possibly be improved if I looked like Olivia Wilde, for example, since so many people would think I was beautiful and that might be good for my ego), that is not a basis for calling this medical care. It is not hateful to say that these interventions are cosmetic treatments that should never be covered by insurance or Medicaid. I don't hate people who've had nose jobs (and no, I'm not talking about deviated septums or other medically necessary nasal surgeries), but I would not think these should be covered by insurance or Medicaid - even though I'm sure plenty of people who have had them would say they made their lives happier.
Number 1 is my choice, too—and what you do here is lay out the logic perfectly. It will not fly with our Ds in their current benighted state, but it is definitely what we ought to be aiming for in the longer term. Bring on the detrans lawsuits!
Of course!
OK, we have now sent our own letter. Lisa, I can't thank you enough for your superb, fact-filled letter. I was feeling stymied on how to do this, and you broke the logjam. PS, if anyone needs or wants "opener" template to grab from, here is how Josie and I opened our letter to our senator and assemblymember:
We are writing to express our concerns about A6761/S8352, as currently proposed. We understand a key purpose of these bills is intended to fill the important purpose, with which we agree, of assuring homeless youth can get the medical and psychological services they need. With nearly 120,000 thousand homeless students in New York City alone, it’s clear how important this is. Our concern relates solely to the inclusion of “gender-affirming care” within the rubric of the bills, as explained more fully below.
First, let us introduce ourselves: we are staunch Democrats and lesbians in our 70s. Here’s a little more about us:
Josie Holford is a retired educator from a family of educators who has taught in London, New York City, and New York State. She has taught every level from 4th grade to freshman college and has served as middle and high school division director, head of school, and trustee. She continues to be active in advising school boards and educators and has written several articles relating to sex and gender issues on her blog and elsewhere, of which this is one: https://intrepidednews.com/gender-identity-ideology/
Susan Scheid is a retired attorney whose legal work included representing the labor unions AFSCME, ACTWU, and the WGA East. She then worked as an assistant State Attorney General in the Charities Bureau under Robert Abrams, after which she moved into health care-related law, with particular focus on health care provided to underserved communities. She was Counsel to Mayor Dinkins’ Office of Medicaid Managed Care under Florence Frucher, then Vice President for Provider Relations at The Bronx Health Plan, and finally, until retirement, in private practice providing legal services to several FQHCs and other CBOs.
In recent years, we have become increasingly concerned about issues related to sex and gender. We have done our best to become as knowledgeable as possible, by reading widely and listening and talking with a wide variety of people with expertise and experience. Out of that,
we are concerned that there is insufficient understanding of what “gender-affirming care” consists, and particularly how it is presently practiced. In particular, present practice unfortunately often includes rushed and improper diagnoses of children who are autistic, have multiple co-morbidities, and/or are simply “gender-non-conforming” many of which, if properly supported through the troublesome time of puberty, would likely grow up to be gay or lesbian, as we are.
We commend to you, as starting points for reading: Pamela Paul’s New York Times piece dated February 2, 2024, “As Kids, They Thought They Were Trans. They No Longer Do,” as well as the many excellent links within that piece. We also highly recommend “Time to Think: The Inside Story of the Collapse of the Tavistock's Gender Service for Children,” by Hannah Barnes, a scrupulously researched and fair-minded book on the problems currently endemic to the practice of gender-related care for children—problems which exist in the US, Canada, and across Europe as well.
As noted in the Paul article:
“’The population has changed drastically,’ said Edwards-Leeper, a former head of the Child and Adolescent Committee for the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, the organization responsible for setting gender transition guidelines for medical professionals.
“For these young people . . . ‘you have to take time to really assess what’s going on and hear the timeline and get the parents’ perspective in order to create an individualized treatment plan. Many providers are completely missing that step.’”
Finally, one of the people from whom we have learned an enormous amount is Lisa Selin Davis, a longtime “leftie” who lives with her husband and two school-age children in Brooklyn and who currently writes on Substack under Broadview.
As Lisa wrote in her letter to her own assemblyperson and state senator: [then we quote extensively from Lisa's letter, starting from "for the past three years"], before closing with
We would be happy to talk to you more about this further and endeavor to answer any questions you may have.
Thank you for your consideration and for all your hard work in our behalf.
Thanks, Lisa. With respect to broken bodies, it is vital to emphasize that the treatments, both medical and surgical, may have enduring and irreversible impacts on the bodies, minds and souls of these understandably confused young people. The gender-affirming complex has not been altogether upfront on this subject.
Yes, exactly this.
Thank you, Lisa, for an excellent, well-researched letter, which I will share with family and friends in New York - and many of your arguments and sentences can be used elsewhere, which is a gift. I'll admit, I flinched a little at "some young people have been helped by transition—as have many adults". GBM puts it so well below. As parents, we worry that those young people are only "helped" for now...there is still so little research and evidence around the long-term impacts of medical transition, let alone, of the underlying belief system on, as GBM puts it, their "minds and souls."
It’s great that you are doing that, and this New Yorker thanks you. We just sent the info and our letter to ~30 NY people who we hope might be receptive to sending their own. Of course, the net on such asks is usually small to none, but I am hoping this coming on the heels of the Paul op-Ed might have awakened a few more people from their deep slumber. We shall see . . .
This letter is an excellent introduction to the issues for anyone not yet familiar with the debate.
Thank you!!!
THANK YOU! As always, Lisa. I really hope they can hear you. If only everyone would.
FYI, and perhaps related, there are two more pieces in the NYTs worth noting—and they are not easy to find. First, if you search Pamela Paul and go to the tab “latest,” you will find an excellent follow-up to her Sunday Op-Ed. Also, on 2/2, the Times Opinion editor weighed in on Paul’s .Op-Ed, and while I doubt many here would join in her general perspective, the key takeaway I see is that she is in full support of Paul’s explorations. Here’s how she ends the article (link to article follows):
Given the state legislative fights over trans Americans and their civil liberties and access to medical and psychological care, we have published many columns and guest essays from health professionals and activists on issues affecting trans people, as well as a focus group last year hearing from trans Americans about their lives. In my experience, trans issues are a topic that inspires a range of partisans, all arguing that their point of view is correct and often demonizing people who don’t agree with them. The voices of the people most directly affected get lost in the arguing.
It’s a loss for real conversation, especially as more and more of us want to know more about the journey that some people have been on with gender identity. If we listen to trans kids and adults talk about their experiences and hopes and if we listen to people who once thought they were trans and now say they are not, I think we will only learn more and approach these struggles and questions with a greater degree of humanity, nuance and empathy.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/02/opinion/transgender-care.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&sgrp=c-cb
Lisa, if you're actually trying to influence votes, this is way too long. No recipient is going to read past the 3rd paragraph, if that. You need to get to your main point much sooner if you want to have an impact. Providing specific edits to the legislation in paragraph 1 is a good way to get your point across.
To the hive mind here: what do you think the appropriate resolution is to fix this legislation? For example:
>except GAC completely from coverage under the bill
>except GAC from coverage under the bill unless in the context of a properly designed clinical study with proper guardrails around who is eligible to participate
>except GAC from coverage under the bill until such time as a properly conducted systematic review determines that substantial evidence exists for provision of GAC and, if so, practice guidelines have been promulgated and necessary enforcement mechanisms are in place, funded, and employed to assure those guidelines are being followed
>except GAC from coverage under the bill except for puberty blockers and x-sex hormones for minors at least 16 years of age
>same as any of the above, but allow continuation of GAC that is already in progress
Any thoughts, or other suggestions?
The first one. GAC is cosmetic surgery, and should be an exception to this bill, just as breast enlargements, Brazilian Butt Lifts, face lifts, or rhinoplasties would be exceptions. While it is theoretically possible that someone might be a bit happier if they have these cosmetic interventions to appear as the opposite sex (I have often said that my life could possibly be improved if I looked like Olivia Wilde, for example, since so many people would think I was beautiful and that might be good for my ego), that is not a basis for calling this medical care. It is not hateful to say that these interventions are cosmetic treatments that should never be covered by insurance or Medicaid. I don't hate people who've had nose jobs (and no, I'm not talking about deviated septums or other medically necessary nasal surgeries), but I would not think these should be covered by insurance or Medicaid - even though I'm sure plenty of people who have had them would say they made their lives happier.
Number 1 is my choice, too—and what you do here is lay out the logic perfectly. It will not fly with our Ds in their current benighted state, but it is definitely what we ought to be aiming for in the longer term. Bring on the detrans lawsuits!
Superb letter, Lisa. Thank you for writing!
This is a great letter! It will be very helpful to form the basis for my own, which I will write and send today.