I take your point about the need to depoliticize a medical issue. But “gender affirming care” is the opposite of medical care. It is iatrogenic harm.
In which case, it is also a moral issue. Do no harm is a moral position. I think it’s fine to point out the immorality of “care” that harms. The fact that some will deny it isn’t, to me, a reason to ignore the moral problem here.
True, but Mengele-like levels of physical harm are being done to the vulnerable as well, which is 1 issue detransitioners have with these "procedures", Andrew Gold has interviewed several survivors.
I totally object to the use of the term "gender-affirming care" here. Even to offer an olive branch to former allies, we cannot use this atrocity-disguising pseudonym. Adopt your enemy's language and you've ceded half the battle.
The PNW has it's own style/form/breed of progressive liberalism that really can't be described or understood by those that don't live in the region (esp Seattle & Portland proper). I knew when I saw this in the news in 2022 that the trans army in WA State was hijacking women's abortion rights and language just as they did the LGB movement. Gov Inslee has left his wake and passed the baton to Ferguson just as it always happens in our stuck-on-blue (in an unhealthy way) state, and the queer theory/trangenderism activists persist, always resist and are oddly savvy: https://youtu.be/ZZNPx_z__P4?si=xd6I9k0pbBPqGc7x
Physicians are the ones who must pull in the reins on this. The fact that Olson-Kennedy is facing multiple malpractice suits, is the forward guard. Insurance companies are going to start refusing coverage and government coverage is already changing. The new military budget bill includes a ban for dependents of US military personnel. Clementine Breen is the new detransitioner voice, eloquently describing Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy's unscrupulous behavior.
She does that herself, stating those unhappy with their top surgeries can always buy new set of breasts, what kind of "doctor" talks about a mastectomy like you're changing batteries?
Just to add, nevermind puberty blockers first for males, they are expected to be sterilised in a few years just from estrogens plus anti androgen. Starting at any age.
And Florida commissioned an external review just like wpath. They went to McMaster, the home of evidence based medicine, and it was led by a professor who develops these assessment tools. Anyone assuming Florida meddled for political reasons is assuming that the professional world class reviewers didn't do their job
... An accusation that should be backed up given that it is a big deal to claim that they would be so unprofessional. That is why jhu got angry when they were told to accept interference. And why it is scandalous that wpath has succeeded in suppressing jhu research that it doesn't like in the creation of its recommendations.
Yes, this is written for liberals, especially those wedded to "reproductive rights." But further dissociation from reality can only go so far, for anything useful to come of it. To "unlink " abortion from so-called "gender affirming care" denies the truth: Both have the goal of aborting a natural process. For "abortion" it's pregnancy, and for "GAC" it's puberty; the natural growth and development of the sexed human being into being a sexually functional adult. Like it or not, to Nature the function of sex is reproduction. The carrot is immediate physical pleasure, and long-term, satisfaction of "love and belonging needs," something that Nature has also coded into our being. I'll gladly "self-identify" as a conservative, as i see the highest good in conserving Nature's right to exist, with the least molestation the Law can manage to ensure.
Well, rape is natural isn't it? Animals rape. Vast numbers of humans were conceived by rape throughout history. If a woman or girl should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term against her will because it's natural, what other violent circumstances do you condone on that basis? Would you accept treatment for organ failure or let Nature take its course? How much are you personally willing to sacrifice so that Nature goes unmolested?
Humans are of a higher order, than animals, and rape is immoral, while animals are amoral. I would not say that rape is natural in the same sense as the natural processes of pregnancy and puberty. The "forced birthing" argument is similarly specious. Birth is a force of Nature, as death is. In your view giving birth is a "violent circumstance?" & abortion isn't? Well, i do condone Israel's response in Gaza, and that meets violence with violence, the intentional kind. The "violence" of birth is a side effect, the intention is the birth of the living being. Or do you mean that it's violence to restrict or forbid the violence of abortion in the situation of an unwanted/unplanned pregnancy? In the case of no restrictions to abortion, what violence is the abortion itself pay-back for?
To your point, at 65 now and in good health -- such that i know of, i'm not a "consumer" of health care as a rule -- when i need emergency care i get it, i take no regular meds, rarely an as-needed. "No fault of my own," but a Blessing i accept as a Gift ... i am also interested in managing my inevitable denouement with the least possible medical intervention. Any suggested would be carefully considered, cost-to-benefit ration, efficacy related to prognosis, acute care vs chronic, and yes, how all that relates to Nature's demand that my life must end. That may mean i'll personally sacrifice a few years of old age, dying earlier than is "normal" now, with advanced medical management indulged in routinely. I've seen dying, perhaps not as much as some have, but when its cascade begins there's no stopping it, no matter how much or how well-done one's medical management has been. All that said i'm not in a crisis situation now; at 27 i had facial reconstruction after an accident; vanity may yet influence my healthcare decisions as time goes on, and people often fall short of their ideals. One being a natural life - all but impossible, and obviously i'm not fully Luddite.
Well, abortion used to ostensibly be about science, but then advances in science kept making viability earlier and earlier, at which point it became a strictly "political" issue. In other words, science was a tool to be used or discarded based on whether it furthered the cause.
I think I've found proof living that animals can switch sex or are both lady and gentleman. The Parrotfish and Clownfish, the Banana Slug, a Copperhead Snake, and the Sea Turtle have these abilities. Is this not sufficiently solid evidence that humans can also switch sex?
I choose to ignore the fact that, um, we're not fish, or turtles, or snakes, and that no mammal can do this. I also choose to ignore the other three hundred billion animals who are stuck with their sex, no mater how badly they want to be more or less colourful.
I am a woke scientist. If a fact doesn't advance my ideology, I flush it down the toilet....after calling it racist.
People die from elective surgery, every time you go under an anesthetic your chances increase of not coming out, my parents were both killed by their doctors, so this isn't about politics, it's about $$$, trans have lived always without mutilating sterilizing life-threatening surgeries & lifetime chemical regimes, Exulansic & Glinner both name names of @ risk youth who die post-surgeries (sepsis, suucide), Linehan has pointed out in post-top surgery "success stories" patients show signs of cutting & other self-harm before paying a professional to do it to them.
Children can no more "consent" to have their healthy breasts and genitalia removed or take puberty blockers than they can "consent" to have sex with an adult.
Similarly, parents and doctors can no more approve such permanent mutilation simply because a minor child desires it than they can approve their participation in pedophilia.
Ultimately society will see the truth and ban the practice as we have banned female genital mutilation. Do people support that practice if the parents consent? I truly hope not
It is monstrous to believe otherwise and those who do will ultimately be held to account for their actions. The obscene bureaucrat Rachel (Richard) Levine among those in the dock
The link between issues is ostensibly about bodily autonomy, but the crux of the issue is age of consent. Kids who can't buy alcohol or consent to sex with adults on the one hand, should not be given the right to permanently prevent their reproductive systems from developing.
The debate is not about adult access to cosmetic procedures that change their appearance to approximate the other sex. If it were, drawing such an equivalency might have some teeth.
You seem to think I am advocating for trans rights. I am not.
I don't care what horrific surgeries a man has had, this does not change his status as male. However, adults are permitted to make all sorts of bad decisions re:cosmetic surgeries that shorten their lives and result in a lifetime of pain. That's between the adult and their physician. (And many immoral physicians DO give opioids to addicts and perform unnecessary surgeries on deluded paying patients). Changing laws and social norms to accommodate the delusions or agenda of this new sacred class is something different for me that's a hard "no".
But we are in the weeds here. I was commenting on age of consent. Comparing the notion that children can consent to life-altering medical interventions to a grown woman's access to abortion is apples and oranges.
Great summary of the times. One nitpick: The 2024 election was not a massive loss for Democrats, who actually picked up a House seat. Sure, it was bad news, but Democrats have suffered way, way worse losses--and so have Republicans.
I can see why the gender critical side, which is generally pro-choice, doesn't want the two issues linked. However, Planned Parenthood has made it clear that they are linked. See my latest article on the Genspect Substack for details, comments welcome.
I take your point about the need to depoliticize a medical issue. But “gender affirming care” is the opposite of medical care. It is iatrogenic harm.
In which case, it is also a moral issue. Do no harm is a moral position. I think it’s fine to point out the immorality of “care” that harms. The fact that some will deny it isn’t, to me, a reason to ignore the moral problem here.
True, but Mengele-like levels of physical harm are being done to the vulnerable as well, which is 1 issue detransitioners have with these "procedures", Andrew Gold has interviewed several survivors.
Correct--I think we agree! Iatrogenic harm is all that "gender care" provides to anyone who receives it.
And I think it's fine if we call it immoral.
I totally object to the use of the term "gender-affirming care" here. Even to offer an olive branch to former allies, we cannot use this atrocity-disguising pseudonym. Adopt your enemy's language and you've ceded half the battle.
Like terf, cis, or gender-critical, when you have to make up words to support your argument you have no argument.
The PNW has it's own style/form/breed of progressive liberalism that really can't be described or understood by those that don't live in the region (esp Seattle & Portland proper). I knew when I saw this in the news in 2022 that the trans army in WA State was hijacking women's abortion rights and language just as they did the LGB movement. Gov Inslee has left his wake and passed the baton to Ferguson just as it always happens in our stuck-on-blue (in an unhealthy way) state, and the queer theory/trangenderism activists persist, always resist and are oddly savvy: https://youtu.be/ZZNPx_z__P4?si=xd6I9k0pbBPqGc7x
Physicians are the ones who must pull in the reins on this. The fact that Olson-Kennedy is facing multiple malpractice suits, is the forward guard. Insurance companies are going to start refusing coverage and government coverage is already changing. The new military budget bill includes a ban for dependents of US military personnel. Clementine Breen is the new detransitioner voice, eloquently describing Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy's unscrupulous behavior.
She does that herself, stating those unhappy with their top surgeries can always buy new set of breasts, what kind of "doctor" talks about a mastectomy like you're changing batteries?
Thank you!
Just to add, nevermind puberty blockers first for males, they are expected to be sterilised in a few years just from estrogens plus anti androgen. Starting at any age.
And Florida commissioned an external review just like wpath. They went to McMaster, the home of evidence based medicine, and it was led by a professor who develops these assessment tools. Anyone assuming Florida meddled for political reasons is assuming that the professional world class reviewers didn't do their job
... An accusation that should be backed up given that it is a big deal to claim that they would be so unprofessional. That is why jhu got angry when they were told to accept interference. And why it is scandalous that wpath has succeeded in suppressing jhu research that it doesn't like in the creation of its recommendations.
“In America, we’ve politicized the evidence, rather than listening to it.” Perfectly stated.
Yes, this is written for liberals, especially those wedded to "reproductive rights." But further dissociation from reality can only go so far, for anything useful to come of it. To "unlink " abortion from so-called "gender affirming care" denies the truth: Both have the goal of aborting a natural process. For "abortion" it's pregnancy, and for "GAC" it's puberty; the natural growth and development of the sexed human being into being a sexually functional adult. Like it or not, to Nature the function of sex is reproduction. The carrot is immediate physical pleasure, and long-term, satisfaction of "love and belonging needs," something that Nature has also coded into our being. I'll gladly "self-identify" as a conservative, as i see the highest good in conserving Nature's right to exist, with the least molestation the Law can manage to ensure.
Well, rape is natural isn't it? Animals rape. Vast numbers of humans were conceived by rape throughout history. If a woman or girl should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term against her will because it's natural, what other violent circumstances do you condone on that basis? Would you accept treatment for organ failure or let Nature take its course? How much are you personally willing to sacrifice so that Nature goes unmolested?
Humans are of a higher order, than animals, and rape is immoral, while animals are amoral. I would not say that rape is natural in the same sense as the natural processes of pregnancy and puberty. The "forced birthing" argument is similarly specious. Birth is a force of Nature, as death is. In your view giving birth is a "violent circumstance?" & abortion isn't? Well, i do condone Israel's response in Gaza, and that meets violence with violence, the intentional kind. The "violence" of birth is a side effect, the intention is the birth of the living being. Or do you mean that it's violence to restrict or forbid the violence of abortion in the situation of an unwanted/unplanned pregnancy? In the case of no restrictions to abortion, what violence is the abortion itself pay-back for?
To your point, at 65 now and in good health -- such that i know of, i'm not a "consumer" of health care as a rule -- when i need emergency care i get it, i take no regular meds, rarely an as-needed. "No fault of my own," but a Blessing i accept as a Gift ... i am also interested in managing my inevitable denouement with the least possible medical intervention. Any suggested would be carefully considered, cost-to-benefit ration, efficacy related to prognosis, acute care vs chronic, and yes, how all that relates to Nature's demand that my life must end. That may mean i'll personally sacrifice a few years of old age, dying earlier than is "normal" now, with advanced medical management indulged in routinely. I've seen dying, perhaps not as much as some have, but when its cascade begins there's no stopping it, no matter how much or how well-done one's medical management has been. All that said i'm not in a crisis situation now; at 27 i had facial reconstruction after an accident; vanity may yet influence my healthcare decisions as time goes on, and people often fall short of their ideals. One being a natural life - all but impossible, and obviously i'm not fully Luddite.
Well, abortion used to ostensibly be about science, but then advances in science kept making viability earlier and earlier, at which point it became a strictly "political" issue. In other words, science was a tool to be used or discarded based on whether it furthered the cause.
I think I've found proof living that animals can switch sex or are both lady and gentleman. The Parrotfish and Clownfish, the Banana Slug, a Copperhead Snake, and the Sea Turtle have these abilities. Is this not sufficiently solid evidence that humans can also switch sex?
I choose to ignore the fact that, um, we're not fish, or turtles, or snakes, and that no mammal can do this. I also choose to ignore the other three hundred billion animals who are stuck with their sex, no mater how badly they want to be more or less colourful.
I am a woke scientist. If a fact doesn't advance my ideology, I flush it down the toilet....after calling it racist.
People die from elective surgery, every time you go under an anesthetic your chances increase of not coming out, my parents were both killed by their doctors, so this isn't about politics, it's about $$$, trans have lived always without mutilating sterilizing life-threatening surgeries & lifetime chemical regimes, Exulansic & Glinner both name names of @ risk youth who die post-surgeries (sepsis, suucide), Linehan has pointed out in post-top surgery "success stories" patients show signs of cutting & other self-harm before paying a professional to do it to them.
Children can no more "consent" to have their healthy breasts and genitalia removed or take puberty blockers than they can "consent" to have sex with an adult.
Similarly, parents and doctors can no more approve such permanent mutilation simply because a minor child desires it than they can approve their participation in pedophilia.
Ultimately society will see the truth and ban the practice as we have banned female genital mutilation. Do people support that practice if the parents consent? I truly hope not
It is monstrous to believe otherwise and those who do will ultimately be held to account for their actions. The obscene bureaucrat Rachel (Richard) Levine among those in the dock
The link between issues is ostensibly about bodily autonomy, but the crux of the issue is age of consent. Kids who can't buy alcohol or consent to sex with adults on the one hand, should not be given the right to permanently prevent their reproductive systems from developing.
The debate is not about adult access to cosmetic procedures that change their appearance to approximate the other sex. If it were, drawing such an equivalency might have some teeth.
You seem to think I am advocating for trans rights. I am not.
I don't care what horrific surgeries a man has had, this does not change his status as male. However, adults are permitted to make all sorts of bad decisions re:cosmetic surgeries that shorten their lives and result in a lifetime of pain. That's between the adult and their physician. (And many immoral physicians DO give opioids to addicts and perform unnecessary surgeries on deluded paying patients). Changing laws and social norms to accommodate the delusions or agenda of this new sacred class is something different for me that's a hard "no".
But we are in the weeds here. I was commenting on age of consent. Comparing the notion that children can consent to life-altering medical interventions to a grown woman's access to abortion is apples and oranges.
“Abortion is about politics. The safest, most effective way to treat gender dysphoric youth—that’s about science.” Well said!
Great summary of the times. One nitpick: The 2024 election was not a massive loss for Democrats, who actually picked up a House seat. Sure, it was bad news, but Democrats have suffered way, way worse losses--and so have Republicans.
America hasn't.
I hope someone publishes this, Lisa!
I can see why the gender critical side, which is generally pro-choice, doesn't want the two issues linked. However, Planned Parenthood has made it clear that they are linked. See my latest article on the Genspect Substack for details, comments welcome.