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

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 1K
  • Views: 31K
  • Politics 
Calheel said:
If you don’t start hormone therapy till 18, you would still have a genetic advantage. In any event, it would likely take two years of therapy to reduce testosterone to sufficiently low levels, so you'd really only be talking about two years of competition. That does seem like a solution that would ever be implemented.
Click to expand...
I don't know how long hormone treatment takes. If your time frame is accurate, then puberty blockers may be the best solution. I'm not a big fan, but it's better than surgery.
 
ZenMode said:
I don't know how long hormone treatment takes. If your time frame is accurate, then puberty blockers may be the best solution. I'm not a big fan, but it's better than surgery.
Click to expand...
Unless you are considering the treatment or your child is considering treatment, you being a fan doesn't matter.
 
ZenMode said:
I don't know how long hormone treatment takes. If your time frame is accurate, then puberty blockers may be the best solution. I'm not a big fan, but it's better than surgery.
Click to expand...
Wait. You want to change your view on puberty blockers for the tens of thousands of kids across the US so that the 10 or so transgender athletes that eventually play in the NCAA have less of a competitive advantage?

Does that make any sense at all? You have 99.99% of the dog wagging the tippy tip of the dog's tail.
 
Calheel said:
Wait. You want to change your view on puberty blockers for the tens of thousands of kids across the US so that the 10 or so transgender athletes that eventually play in the NCAA have less of a competitive advantage?

Does that make any sense at all? You have 99.99% of the dog wagging the tippy tip of the dog's tail.
Click to expand...
I was against puberty blockers, but not looking to force that legally. I would support a legal ban on GAS until age 18.
 
Calheel said:
The government bans all sorts of things it believes are harmful to minors, including conversion therapy. If we are going to stop the government from being a nosy parent, there are a whole bunch of laws that we should be challenging.
Click to expand...
I'd say challenging any going against a committee of doctors' advice and the will of the parents.

You can add any barring mandatory sex education. Growing up ignorant does a hell of a lot more damage than anything to do with gender reassignment, especially if some of the ignorance and stupidity concerning that is mitigated. Same with any laws that even hint at the importance of religion to the wellbeing of the nation. I could go on. I thought it was the conservatives against the nanny government.
 
ZenMode said:
The government has an interest, if not responsibility, to protect children. That's why we have Child Protective Services or similar in each state.
Click to expand...
Interfering in medical and family decisions is not an area of their expertise and parent and physician participation relieves them of direct responsibility. There are already means to challenge either if the case for damages can be made. Blatant intrusion and a scattershot approach to a delicate situation is an act of lunacy. The government and the public has no vested interest here.
 
ZenMode said:
I was against puberty blockers, but not looking to force that legally. I would support a legal ban on GAS until age 18.
Click to expand...
Why are the medical procedures of other people any of your business?

If you want breast augmentation should Congress have an opinion?
 
Calheel said:
The government bans all sorts of things it believes are harmful to minors, including conversion therapy. If we are going to stop the government from being a nosy parent, there are a whole bunch of laws that we should be challenging.
Click to expand...
And many of those probably do need review.

If we do have laws for minors they should be for protections, not to stop personal choices.

Plus, from what I've read there is a long process for GAS, so by the time they get to that point it's well vetted. It isn't a same day process as trump keeps saying.
 
ZenMode said:
The government has an interest, if not responsibility, to protect children. That's why we have Child Protective Services or similar in each state.
Click to expand...
And the right constantly tries to reduce funding or do away with these services, a little hypocritical wouldn't you say?

To be clear we do need to protect our children. But we probably need to be focused. I mean how many of those catholic priest were prosecuted for molesting young boys? But some magas want to ban an elective surgery based mostly on their ignorance and control issues. Wow.

Guidelines, standards, processes...

I could understand those, but a ban?
 
UNCatTech said:
And many of those probably do need review.

If we do have laws for minors they should be for protections, not to stop personal choices.

Plus, from what I've read there is a long process for GAS, so by the time they get to that point it's well vetted. It isn't a same day process as trump keeps saying.
Click to expand...
I agree. And the reality is that gender reassignment surgery is usually one of the very last steps in the process, and some never do it. Very few bottom surgeries happen on minors (and top surgeries are very rare, too, although not as rare as bottom). So like all things with transgenders, the right is making a mountain out of a mole hill.

I could see an argument to ban all elective plastic surgeries for minors, including nose jobs. It does seem a bit odd that conservatives only want to ban certain life-altering elective surgeries
 
nycfan said:
Click to expand...

As a 24 year veteran of the Navy, this disgusts me. This is openly and blatantly homophobic and racist. There's also discussion of renaming other ships of that class: USNS Medgar Evers (T-AKE-13); USNS Cesar Chavez (T-AKE-14); USNS Lucy Stone (TAO-209); USNS Sojourner Truth (TAO-210); the future USNS Thurgood Marshall (TAO-211); the future USNS Ruth Bader Ginsburg (TAO-212); the future USNS Harriet Tubman (TAO-213) and the future USNS Dolores Huerta (TAO-214). The entirety of the GOP has become a race baiting, homophobic, transphobic cesspool of human filth. Hillary was wrong when she said, "half of Trump supporters fit into a basket of deplorables, while the other half are people who feel the government has let them down and need understanding and empathy". Screw that. They're ALL 'effin deplorables.
 
tarheel931 said:
As a 24 year veteran of the Navy, this disgusts me. This is openly and blatantly homophobic and racist. There's also discussion of renaming other ships of that class: USNS Medgar Evers (T-AKE-13); USNS Cesar Chavez (T-AKE-14); USNS Lucy Stone (TAO-209); USNS Sojourner Truth (TAO-210); the future USNS Thurgood Marshall (TAO-211); the future USNS Ruth Bader Ginsburg (TAO-212); the future USNS Harriet Tubman (TAO-213) and the future USNS Dolores Huerta (TAO-214). The entirety of the GOP has become a race baiting, homophobic, transphobic cesspool of human filth. Hillary was wrong when she said, "half of Trump supporters fit into a basket of deplorables, while the other half are people who feel the government has let them down and need understanding and empathy". Screw that. They're ALL 'effin deplorables.
Click to expand...
If they fucking take Harriet Tubman's name away, I'd be almost ready to revolt. People don't get much more heroic than risking life and limb to free 50,000 slaves from captivity. If we had a Mount Rushmore of great Americans who weren't president, she'd be on it (I'm assuming there would be more than four faces). She definitely deserves to be on a naval vessel.

This isn't to say that I find the other renaming OK, but the Harriet Tubman really, really, really annoys me.
 
superrific said:
If they fucking take Harriet Tubman's name away, I'd be almost ready to revolt. People don't get much more heroic than risking life and limb to free 50,000 slaves from captivity. If we had a Mount Rushmore of great Americans who weren't president, she'd be on it (I'm assuming there would be more than four faces). She definitely deserves to be on a naval vessel.

This isn't to say that I find the other renaming OK, but the Harriet Tubman really, really, really annoys me.
Click to expand...
Not to mention, leaving aside how outstandingly worthy she is of being honored, the USNS Harriet Tubman has to be one of the best ship names in Navy history.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top