SCOTUS case: Trans rights for minors

[finesse]

I'm sure there are kids who truly, from the age they are able to speak and understand gender, feel like they are in the wrong body. I'm also confident that some portion of the rapidly increasing transgender population is not in the category of the aforementioned example.

The problem differentiating between the two categories to ensure that life-changing surgeries are only being performed when it's appropriate.

I wouldn't expect the government to look at the situation and decide the course of action. It would be a matter of the government outlawing surgeries until the person is an adult.

I found a Reuters article that shows, between 2019 and 2021, 56 genital surgeries and 776 mastectomies on 13-17 year olds.

Why is that the government's business? We know what they are doing but why do they have the right to do it? They have no skin in the game and they don't have any of the information that the parents and doctors do. They need to keep their nose out of stuff like this. It has zero effect on their job and the same effect on the country at large.

 

[superrific]

Why is that the government's business? We know what they are doing but why do they have the right to do it? They have no skin in the game and they don't have any of the information that the parents and doctors do. They need to keep their nose out of stuff like this. It has zero effect on their job and the same effect on the country at large.

The difficulty here is that states do have substantial authority to regulate medical practice. For instance, most states have banned "conversion therapy" for gay people, pursuant to the power to regulate medical practice.

These trans health bans are styled as regulations of medical practice. That's why Prelogar is arguing equal protection and not privacy.

 

[finesse]

The difficulty here is that states do have substantial authority to regulate medical practice. For instance, most states have banned "conversion therapy" for gay people, pursuant to the power to regulate medical practice.


Is that banning medical practice or malpractice? There's no medicine involved in that, just coercive practices and brainwashing for something not considered a disorder. I have no problem with them regulating abusive, unrecognized and/or dangerous treatments. This is real and there are real and recognized treatments. Those seem like entirely different things even if they are currently treated the same under the law.

 

[UNCatTech]

I'm sure there are kids who truly, from the age they are able to speak and understand gender, feel like they are in the wrong body. I'm also confident that some portion of the rapidly increasing transgender population is not in the category of the aforementioned example.

The problem differentiating between the two categories to ensure that life-changing surgeries are only being performed when it's appropriate.

I wouldn't expect the government to look at the situation and decide the course of action. It would be a matter of the government outlawing surgeries until the person is an adult.

I found a Reuters article that shows, between 2019 and 2021, 56 genital surgeries and 776 mastectomies on 13-17 year olds.

I don't disagree that it isn't a perfect world where we know everting with zero uncertainty.

And in not sure about the surgeries, but the puberty blockers are recommended earlier.

Either way, it's not our choice. It's the person who's life is effected.

You know this sounds a lot like the abortion debate.

In both cases old white men fell they are best suited for making decisions about another person's body and their accredited to medical care.

So, once again it seems more about control than actually caring about the well being of the patient.

If it was more than control, they would be sponsoring studies and understanding instead of outlawing medical care.

 

[UNCatTech]

Why is that the government's business? We know what they are doing but why do they have the right to do it? They have no skin in the game and they don't have any of the information that the parents and doctors do. They need to keep their nose out of stuff like this. It has zero effect on their job and the same effect on the country at large.

And pubs are supposed to be the party of less government intrusion in our lives.

 

[UNCatTech]

The difficulty here is that states do have substantial authority to regulate medical practice. For instance, most states have banned "conversion therapy" for gay people, pursuant to the power to regulate medical practice.


Is that banning medical practice or malpractice? There's no medicine involved in that, just coercive practices and brainwashing for something not considered a disorder. I have no problem with them regulating abusive, unrecognized and/or dangerous treatments. This is real and there are real and recognized treatments. Those seem like entirely different things even if they are currently treated the same under the law.

Conversion therapy isn't medically sound, it's quack science based in religion.

This is an example of parents not having their kids best interest in mind.

 

[ZenMode]

Why is that the government's business? We know what they are doing but why do they have the right to do it? They have no skin in the game and they don't have any of the information that the parents and doctors do. They need to keep their nose out of stuff like this. It has zero effect on their job and the same effect on the country at large.

The government has an interest in protecting children. While it's true that the government doesn't interfere in the medical aspect, normally the need for surgeries isn't in question. A surgery to fix an injury or other issue. A surgery to repair something that is defective, etc.

That need isn't obvious in the case of gender transition surgery because there's no visibility to the mind of the child who is getting the surgery.

 

[BlooVooDoo]

The government has an interest in protecting children. While it's true that the government doesn't interfere in the medical aspect, normally the need for surgeries isn't in question. A surgery to fix an injury or other issue. A surgery to repair something that is defective, etc.

That need isn't obvious in the case of gender transition surgery because there's no visibility to the mind of the child who is getting the surgery.

How is that different than elective plastic surgery for minors? Do any states ban that?

 

[roostra]

The government has an interest in protecting children. While it's true that the government doesn't interfere in the medical aspect, normally the need for surgeries isn't in question. A surgery to fix an injury or other issue. A surgery to repair something that is defective, etc.

That need isn't obvious in the case of gender transition surgery because there's no visibility to the mind of the child who is getting the surgery.

If this were just about surgeries, that might be one thing, but there is a huge range of other medical treatment options short of surgery (like puberty blockers, for example) that are also at risk of being banned. (Focusing on surgeries for minors seems a lot like the anti-choice movement focusing on partial birth abortions when they are a miniscule proportion of total abortions and from what I can tell always medically necessary to save the life of the mother).

And I don't think you responded to another poster who raised this, but are you in support of the government banning circumcision until the child is old enough to make an informed decision about that?

 

[ZenMode]

I don't disagree that it isn't a perfect world where we know everting with zero uncertainty.

And in not sure about the surgeries, but the puberty blockers are recommended earlier.

Either way, it's not our choice. It's the person who's life is effected.

You know this sounds a lot like the abortion debate.

In both cases old white men fell they are best suited for making decisions about another person's body and their accredited to medical care.

So, once again it seems more about control than actually caring about the well being of the patient.

If it was more than control, they would be sponsoring studies and understanding instead of outlawing medical care.

My concern isn't the race, age and gender of the decision makers. It's really a question of what is the right thing to do, no matter who the decision maker ends up being.

 

[BlooVooDoo]

If this were just about surgeries, that might be one thing, but there is a huge range of other medical treatment options short of surgery (like puberty blockers, for example) that are also at risk of being banned.

And I don't think you responded to another poster who raised this, but are you in support of the government banning circumcision until the child is old enough to make an informed decision about that?

Don’t hold your breath for a straight answer.

 

[finesse]

The government has an interest in protecting children. While it's true that the government doesn't interfere in the medical aspect, normally the need for surgeries isn't in question. A surgery to fix an injury or other issue. A surgery to repair something that is defective, etc.

That need isn't obvious in the case of gender transition surgery because there's no visibility to the mind of the child who is getting the surgery.

If they need to protect children, feed them and give them basic healthcare instead of interfering where neither is likely to be the issue. That's one of your dumbest arguments, btw.

 

[UNCatTech]

My concern isn't the race, age and gender of the decision makers. It's really a question of what is the right thing to do, no matter who the decision maker ends up being.

The point wasn't the race, age, or gender,
and you know that, it's the government control of personal medical procedures.

If they are not the individual's primary care provider how is it their responsibility? How are they able to make a medical decision for these people that they do not know?

 

[UNCatTech]

If they need to protect children, feed them and give them basic healthcare instead of interfering where neither is likely to be the issue. That's one of your dumbest arguments, btw.

Exactly, end discussion.

If they really care about children's wellbeing focus where there is the greatest potential for benefit.

Feed them instead of trying to cut social safety nets.
Educate them instead of trying to indoctrinate them to your religion.
Protect jobs and living wages instead of corporate welfare via lower corporate taxes.

 

[ZenMode]

How is that different than elective plastic surgery for minors? Do any states ban that?

It probably isn't much different since both are elective. Technically the same with circumcision, though plastic surgery is probably , in most cases, to fix a deformity of some sort. Circumcision wouldn't be life-changing like double mastectomy, but the question of letting the person decide is valid.

 

[Calheel]

How is that different than elective plastic surgery for minors? Do any states ban that?

This is a silly discussion because basically 0.0% of the population is getting gender surgeries prior to age 18. There are a very, very few ... but it is effectively zero.

That said, it is equally silly to compare a routine nose job to gender reassignment surgery.

 

[Calheel]

If this were just about surgeries, that might be one thing, but there is a huge range of other medical treatment options short of surgery (like puberty blockers, for example) that are also at risk of being banned. (Focusing on surgeries for minors seems a lot like the anti-choice movement focusing on partial birth abortions when they are a miniscule proportion of total abortions and from what I can tell always medically necessary to save the life of the mother).

And I don't think you responded to another poster who raised this, but are you in support of the government banning circumcision until the child is old enough to make an informed decision about that?

UK has a temp ban on puberty blockers right now. Kids who have started the treatment are grandfathered in, but they are not allowing new kids to start for the time being.

Extension to temporary ban on puberty blockers

The continuation of the ban applies to the sale or supply of these drugs to under 18s not already taking them.

www.gov.uk

 

[rodoheel]

The government has an interest in protecting children. While it's true that the government doesn't interfere in the medical aspect, normally the need for surgeries isn't in question. A surgery to fix an injury or other issue. A surgery to repair something that is defective, etc.

That need isn't obvious in the case of gender transition surgery because there's no visibility to the mind of the child who is getting the surgery.

Why should it matter if the need is obvious to you? Shouldn't the question be if the parents and physician decide there's a need for the surgery? If the parents and physician believe there is a need, who is the state to tell them otherwise?

And in any event there are other surgical procedures a minor can get (assuming parental consent) regardless of whether they "need" it. Should the state also ban nose jobs for minors? What about cosmetic oral surgery?

 

[Callatoroy]

This is a silly discussion because basically 0.0% of the population is getting gender surgeries prior to age 18. There are a very, very few ... but it is effectively zero.

That said, it is equally silly to compare a routine nose job to gender reassignment surgery.

Not stating this as fact, but doesn't the MN law allow underage kids to undergo surgery at the exclusion of parental consent?

 

[UNCatTech]

It probably isn't much different since both are elective. Technically the same with circumcision, though plastic surgery is probably , in most cases, to fix a deformity of some sort. Circumcision wouldn't be life-changing like double mastectomy, but the question of letting the person decide is valid.

Oh circumcision can be life changing. There are documented cases of these common procedures going wrong.