I don't need to be saved from anything. You are missing the point. In fairly typical liberal fashion, you just can't agree to disagree without labeling. You want to build a wall to secure the border? You're a xenophobe. You don't want doctors performing GAS on minors? You support segregation and don't believe in interracial marriage. You don't support affirmative action in publicly funded universities? You're a racist.
Surgeries are current performed on minors between the age of 13-17. Those who are opposed to limiting surgeries to only adults (18+) are:
The racism and other -ism cards do get played too much in my opinion, but it's somewhat understandable given one party has actively catered to racists, xenophobes, homophobes, etc and made them feel welcome. So while I don't think you are anti-transgender and your concerns are valid, there is a ton of anti-transgender sentiment in the party that is pushing these laws. Heck you've got Ehaus on this thread saying transgender people should be frowned upon.
Just read the first page. I didn't see any one state they oppose a ban on minor's receiving transition surgeries (although rodoheel was perhaps the closest by implication). The entire thrust of the discussion concerned opposition to Tennessee's law, which is much, much broader than just surgeries.
I’d need to see the language of such a ban before commenting. This is (a big) part of the problem with the current breed of social conservatives. They are some combination of not smart enough, serious enough, thoughtful enough, curious enough or informed enough to write legislation that addresses what the claim is the issue in a way that doesn’t cause harm to an (ostensibly) unintended group.
I never suggested anything but to follow the wishes of those involved and the advice of the multiple doctors. Don't put words in my mouth. If that is part of what the doctors advise and the parents and child want, then yes, I'm fine with it. So to that extent, you are correct that I don't require an age limit just like they don't require our input in that decision.
And there it is.
If you only support the decision to be made between the child, parent and doctor, then how could you support a government ban?
Why do you keep dodging the question?
Your question is beside the point. How can you say you ONLY support the decision being made between the doctor, child and family and, in the next breath, say you aren't opposed to a government ban?
Where, exactly do you get that?
You’re talking about what kind of environment is more conducive for people to transition. I’m talking about the biological need for someone to transition. That doesn’t occur because more people around them are doing it.
You're joking, right?
Gandhi: "there are unjust laws just as there are unjust people". Hitler needs no more lieutenants...
Again, you are viewing this as a binary: people are either transgender or they are not. People are not computers with a 1 or a zero. It is much more nuanced than that. Societal factors absolutely influence the "biological need" to transition because the "biological need" is not a yes/no, either/or thing for many transgender or transgender-curious people.
That reality hasn't changed. You only think it has because nuance is lost on you.
1. The answer is evidence. You know, the thing you claim to value in your sig line. This isn't a question of agreement or disagreement. It's a question of reality. The difference between corporal punishment and transgender health is that the research clearly demonstrates that the former is harmful and the latter is beneficial. Now, 50 years ago, the effects of corporal punishment were not as well know. Somebody belting their kid back then -- maybe they didn't know better.