GOP & Policies toward/treatment of Transgender & other LGBTQ Americans

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 1K
  • Views: 30K
  • Politics 
nycfan said:


“… Now, a medical journal has published the most reliable estimate yet and the numbers are low, reflecting more clearly on medical practices now being weighed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Fewer than 1 in 1,000 U.S. adolescents with commercial insurance received gender-affirming medications — puberty blockers or hormones — during a recent five-year period, according to the study released Monday.

… “We are not seeing inappropriate use of this sort of care,” said lead author Landon Hughes, a Harvard University public health researcher. “And it’s certainly not happening at the rate at which people often think it is.”

… The researchers analyzed a large insurance claims database covering more than 5 million patients ages 8 to 17.

Only 926 adolescents with a gender-related diagnosis received puberty blockers from 2018 through 2022. During that time, 1,927 received hormones. The findings, published in JAMA Pediatrics, suggest that fewer than 0.1% of all youth in the database received these medications.

The researchers found that no patients under age 12 were prescribed hormones, an indication that doctors are appropriately cautious about when to start such treatments, Hughes said.

“I hope that our paper cools heads on this issue and ensures that the public is getting a true sense of the number of people who are accessing this care,” he said.…”
Click to expand...

Gonna take an awfully long time for the US public school system to transition every child at this rate.
 

House Passes GOP’s Transgender Sports Bill​

The legislation would strip federal funding from schools that let transgender girls compete in female sports categories​


"The Republican-led House narrowly passed legislation designed to force public institutions to prohibit transgender girls and women from competing in female sports categories.

The bill, dubbed the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act, requires schools to restrict participation in female sports categories to girls and women, “based solely on a person’s reproductive biology and genetics at birth.”

The measure passed the House in a 218 to 206 tally, with one lawmaker, Democratic Rep. Don Davis of North Carolina, voting present. Democratic leadership issued guidance to vote against the bill, but two Texas Democrats, Vicente Gonzalez and Henry Cuellar, joined all Republicans in voting in favor. A similar proposal in 2023 drew no Democratic votes.

The legislation would make it a violation of federal Title IX rules for any educational institution that receives federal funding to allow transgender girls and women to participate in female sports categories on the basis of their gender identity. The definition covers almost every middle school, high school and college in the U.S. ..."
 
(Continued)

"... The matter now heads to the GOP-led Senate, which is expected to take it up soon. A similar bill was introduced in the chamber by Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R., Ala.) and was co-sponsored by 35 Republicans. The same bill passed the House in 2023, but died in the then-Democratic-controlled Senate after President Biden threatened a veto.

... Democrats criticized the bill as an intrusive overreach, putting at risk girls and women who aren’t transgender. Some have called it the “Child Predator Empowerment Act,” suggesting that it could require schools to conduct genital examinations. Others decried it as bullying and harmful to youth mental health.

“We cannot stand and allow politicizing kids’ sports to be used as a political tool,” said Rep. Pete Aguilar of California, the No. 3 House Democrat.

Biden considered implementing federal rules that would have prohibited outright bans of transgender athletes, while allowing some exclusions if necessary to maintain a level playing field, but ultimately pulled back."
 
UNCatTech said:
We all knew it was coming.
I'm sure that Zen thinks it more nuanced and not as blatantly bigoted as it appears.
Click to expand...
And anyone who thinks that they will stop even if this ends in defeat is fooling themselves. MAGA is really feeling their oats right now, and on culture war issues I expect them to go for broke. They'll never have a better time to ram through their dream agenda of rolling us all backwards to the 1950s.
 
I have no doubt that some Republicans would like to make marriage decisions at a state, not national, level.

There's also a reason this isn't big news- it means nothing. It's "for show".

Remember when Republicans were voting every other day to repeal Obamacare? This is as meaningless as that. Probably more meaningless.
 
nycfan said:

House Passes GOP’s Transgender Sports Bill​

The legislation would strip federal funding from schools that let transgender girls compete in female sports categories​


"The Republican-led House narrowly passed legislation designed to force public institutions to prohibit transgender girls and women from competing in female sports categories.

The bill, dubbed the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act, requires schools to restrict participation in female sports categories to girls and women, “based solely on a person’s reproductive biology and genetics at birth.”

The measure passed the House in a 218 to 206 tally, with one lawmaker, Democratic Rep. Don Davis of North Carolina, voting present. Democratic leadership issued guidance to vote against the bill, but two Texas Democrats, Vicente Gonzalez and Henry Cuellar, joined all Republicans in voting in favor. A similar proposal in 2023 drew no Democratic votes.

The legislation would make it a violation of federal Title IX rules for any educational institution that receives federal funding to allow transgender girls and women to participate in female sports categories on the basis of their gender identity. The definition covers almost every middle school, high school and college in the U.S. ..."
Click to expand...
I would bet money that this bill got more votes than there are trans athletes.
 
ZenMode said:
I have no doubt that some Republicans would like to make marriage decisions at a state, not national, level.

There's also a reason this isn't big news- it means nothing. It's "for show".

Remember when Republicans were voting every other day to repeal Obamacare? This is as meaningless as that. Probably more meaningless.
Click to expand...
Some things should not be at a state level because it's ridiculous to have different rules in each state. Marriage is one of those.

Why should one state be able to tell my child that they cannot marry while another say it's ok?
 
UNCatTech said:
Some things should not be at a state level because it's ridiculous to have different rules in each state. Marriage is one of those.

Why should one state be able to tell my child that they cannot marry while another say it's ok?
Click to expand...
Marriage already is at a state level, subject to constitutional restrictions. What states can't do is refuse to recognize marriages in other states, because of the Full Faith And Credit clause. Who knows -- maybe that will be a new target for the jabroni right, but as of now, that's the state of play as I understand it.

Some jurisdictions allow for remote marriages. Those are often used for people to get married while deployed abroad. I don't know if they have any residency requirements, or if it's like Vegas-on-zoom.
 
superrific said:
Marriage already is at a state level, subject to constitutional restrictions. What states can't do is refuse to recognize marriages in other states, because of the Full Faith And Credit clause. Who knows -- maybe that will be a new target for the jabroni right, but as of now, that's the state of play as I understand it.

Some jurisdictions allow for remote marriages. Those are often used for people to get married while deployed abroad. I don't know if they have any residency requirements, or if it's like Vegas-on-zoom.
Click to expand...
True, I understand this. Might not have been the best subject to make a point on.

My belief is that some laws need to be consistent across all states.

A better example might be the issues we have with guns, where criminals buy guns in the states with laxed laws to use to commit crimes in states with very strict laws.

Does that make sense?
 
nycfan said:
Click to expand...

Although I know that most posters here already know this, I'll keep saying it - anybody who thinks that Trump 2.0 isn't going to go after LGBTQ rights is fooling themselves. They'll start with transgenders because they are the most disliked and vulnerable and easy target, but it will gradually move to a broader attack on the entire community.
 
Last edited:
Mulberry Heel said:
Although I know that most posters here already know this, I'll keep saying it - anybody who thinks that Trump 2.0 isn't going to go after LGBTQ rights is fooling themselves. They'll start with transgenders because they are the most disliked and vulnerable and easy target, but it will move to a broader attack on the entire community.
Click to expand...
Oh yea-it will be way to easy to move that way-so they will
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top