Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

N.C. bill would ban treatment for trans people under 21

Page 3 of 3 [ 37 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

Previous topic | Next topic

The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,808
Location: London

10 Apr 2021, 7:05 am

Mr Reynholm wrote:
HeroOfHyrule wrote:
Mr Reynholm wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
Mr Reynholm wrote:
There is nothing controversial about this bill. After a person is 21 they can have any treatment they want, but an age limit needs to be set. A child can't make life altering decisions such as this.

So, a nanny state is necessary to protect people from themselves?

Would you allow a 12 year old to get irreversible surgery or hormone therapy that would leave them scared for life? If an adult wants to fine. Children aren't able to make such decisions for themselves.

Can you show us any sources saying that children getting surgery and hormone replacement therapy is actually a common occurrence? I have never been shown any cases of this actually happening.

Minors aren't even allowed to have reassignment surgery until they hit 18, and I rarely hear of anyone getting hormone replacement therapy before the ages of 16-18. Even then, going on hormone therapy at 16 seems to be reserved for adolescents that have gone through extensive therapy for years and have presented as the gender they identify as for years.

Why have age limits on anything then. Alcohol, drugs, marriage, gun ownership, ect? These all come with serious life altering consequences.

All sorts of medical care can have life altering consequences. Do you think people should not be allowed to have cancer treatment before the age of 21?

Singling out trans healthcare in the way that you have can only be justified through ignorance or malice.

Not to mention that in most countries, it is completely legal for an 18 year old to buy alcohol, get married, buy legal drugs, and own legal guns, so those don't really seem like good arguments. Heck, in this country it is legal to give a five-year-old alcohol in your home. 16-year-olds can have a drink with a meal in a pub, get married, buy all sorts of drugs including some which are technically illegal, and can receive a gun license (although there are extra restrictions around storing it).



League_Girl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 27,205
Location: Pacific Northwest

10 Apr 2021, 11:01 am

IsabellaLinton wrote:
I hope Medicaid covers it. A person shouldn't be denied their rightful gender based on their income, or that of their parents. That seems Draconian.

My daughter was cut off my benefits at age 18 if she wasn't a student. She could have continued to be covered while going to school until she was 21. By then she was finished school and they tried to terminate her. It was a lengthy process but I managed to get her back on my plan as an overaged, disabled dependent because of her medical disabilities. Her status is reviewed every two years, and she was already reapproved once. Although, those benefits have nothing to do with medical doctors. Doctors are always free. This is more for psychology, and physiotherapy, etc.



But the good news is the kid can apply for state benefits to get "free" medical insurance if they are low enough income.


_________________
Son: Diagnosed w/anxiety and ADHD. Also academic delayed.

Daughter: NT, no diagnoses.


Mr Reynholm
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Feb 2019
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,363
Location: Tulsa, OK

15 Apr 2021, 7:24 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
Mr Reynholm wrote:
There is nothing controversial about this bill. After a person is 21 they can have any treatment they want, but an age limit needs to be set. A child can't make life altering decisions such as this.


Maybe not for people who are happy with their sex, but I suspect people who are trapped in the wrong sex of body may find it controversial. Why should someone have to be 21 to get medical treatment?

Why should people be 21 to drink? 16 to drive? Maturity. Kids are not mature enough to know what they want so just requiring a person to be a legal adult to have life altering and permanent transformation surgery is not too much to require.



Mr Reynholm
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Feb 2019
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,363
Location: Tulsa, OK

15 Apr 2021, 7:30 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
Mr Reynholm wrote:
HeroOfHyrule wrote:
Mr Reynholm wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
Mr Reynholm wrote:
There is nothing controversial about this bill. After a person is 21 they can have any treatment they want, but an age limit needs to be set. A child can't make life altering decisions such as this.

So, a nanny state is necessary to protect people from themselves?

Would you allow a 12 year old to get irreversible surgery or hormone therapy that would leave them scared for life? If an adult wants to fine. Children aren't able to make such decisions for themselves.

Can you show us any sources saying that children getting surgery and hormone replacement therapy is actually a common occurrence? I have never been shown any cases of this actually happening.

Minors aren't even allowed to have reassignment surgery until they hit 18, and I rarely hear of anyone getting hormone replacement therapy before the ages of 16-18. Even then, going on hormone therapy at 16 seems to be reserved for adolescents that have gone through extensive therapy for years and have presented as the gender they identify as for years.

Why have age limits on anything then. Alcohol, drugs, marriage, gun ownership, ect? These all come with serious life altering consequences.



All sorts of medical care can have life altering consequences. Do you think people should not be allowed to have cancer treatment before the age of 21?

Singling out trans healthcare in the way that you have can only be justified through ignorance or malice.

Not to mention that in most countries, it is completely legal for an 18 year old to buy alcohol, get married, buy legal drugs, and own legal guns, so those don't really seem like good arguments. Heck, in this country it is legal to give a five-year-old alcohol in your home. 16-year-olds can have a drink with a meal in a pub, get married, buy all sorts of drugs including some which are technically illegal, and can receive a gun license (although there are extra restrictions around storing it).

That is an absolutely ridiculous argument.
How can you possibly compare cancer surgery to sex change? Do you think a teenager or a pre-teen is mature enough to make life altering decisions? No thats why they have parents to make decisions for them. Sorry but I don't live in the world of the theoretical.



HeroOfHyrule
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 May 2020
Age: 22
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,247

15 Apr 2021, 7:40 pm

Mr Reynholm wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Mr Reynholm wrote:
There is nothing controversial about this bill. After a person is 21 they can have any treatment they want, but an age limit needs to be set. A child can't make life altering decisions such as this.


Maybe not for people who are happy with their sex, but I suspect people who are trapped in the wrong sex of body may find it controversial. Why should someone have to be 21 to get medical treatment?

Why should people be 21 to drink? 16 to drive? Maturity. Kids are not mature enough to know what they want so just requiring a person to be a legal adult to have life altering and permanent transformation surgery is not too much to require.

It's not "just requiring someone to be a legal adult", it's requring them to be 21. People are legal adults at 18, not 21.

Do you think 18-20 year olds are children and shouldn't be allowed to make their own medical decisions?