Already in 2024, anti-LGBTQ measures have passed at least one chamber in Arizona, Idaho, South Carolina, Utah, and West Virginia — including two new Utah laws.
I share most of your views here, especially that the intent of these laws is clearly "anti-LGBTQ," but the laws you call "forced outing" are reasonable. School officials should be required to inform caregivers when they become aware of a student's possible gender dysphoria. Alternatively, they can help the student obtain court ordered independence if circumstances suggest the child-caregiver relationship is injurious to the child's best interests. Surely, you don't intend to suggest that school officials effectively substitute for a student's caregiver by not notifying them regarding any important medical issue.
Besides this disagreement, I think important context is missing when you criticize laws prohibiting minors from accessing gender-affirming medical interventions. Legislators should never interfere with any doctor-patient relationship, but it's important to clarify that these laws don't prohibit "Gender-Affirmitive Care" as outlined in the American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines (https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/142/4/e20182162/37381/Ensuring-Comprehensive-Care-and-Support-for?autologincheck=redirected), which is essentially "talk therapy." They only prohibit the next phase of treatment, "Medical Management." Those include puberty blockers.
The AAP guidelines also recommend against puberty blockers for young people (especially prepubescents), as they go to great lengths to explain the importance of "Developmental Considerations." It is critical to note that the FDA has not approved puberty blockers for the treatment of gender dysphoria, ostensibly because they have serious side effects, most prominently in bone and brain development. Moreover, from 2017-2021, diagnosis of gender dysphoria among children from 6 to 17 years old has increased by an unbelievable 9 fold! Clearly, widespread misdiagnoses is strongly suggested.
It's unfortunate that Republican legislators have passed ill-conceived legislation (and with nefarious intent), but it's equally as unfortunate that important context is often missed by critics of that legislation. Our LGBTQ children deserve unbiased support.
First, the discussion of the forced outing bills is the singling out of gender identity for differential treatment. It's a standalone provisions that *only* applies to gender identity and none of the other hundreds of things children explore when growing up. It puts additional requirements on teachers and puts additional incentives on students to hide questions about gender identity from adults. That's bad, on two fronts.
As to your other point, I state specifically, "gender-affirming medical care," distinguishing what is being banned. Also: I've also written about 100 posts on this topic, so, yes, we're all aware of what is being banned — for now, at least — when we say "gender-affirming medical care." It is puberty blockers, cross hormones, and surgery. No one is missing the context; you just felt the need to raise quibbles where no one had questions.
I'm disappointed you view my challenge as "trolling." I've only recently subscribed to your Substack so I don't know if that's characteristic of you. My challenge is respectful and well meaning.
State laws mandating that schools notify parents of a student's potential gender dysphoria are necessarily "singling out" that condition because there's a need to declare that it's included under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). As you know, for good, widely-accepted reasons schools can be sued and lose federal funding if they withhold medical information from parents.
All states should pass similar laws because youngsters claiming "gender dysphoria" is arguably a modern social contagion. That's a reasonable conclusion from the fact that the diagnosis of gender dysphoria is incredibly 9 times higher in 2021 than 2017! That's a remarkable and very telling statistic (albeit, "telling of what," is unresolved).
Schools need to know that it's a medical condition within FERPA.
State laws prohibiting puberty blockers for minors are not only reasonable but advisable. That's an easy assertion to make because the FDA does not approve them for treatment of gender dysphoria. They're not approved for youngsters because they have serious side effects experienced during development, namely bone loss and brain development (the consequences of the latter being especially troublesome because it's difficult to nail down).
You're not alone in your angry (over)reaction to my disagreement with you regarding these specific Republican-led laws you call "anti-LGBTQ" (which is an agreeable descriptor because, unlike me, many Republicans have bad intent). That's not going to deter me. I am a supporter of LGBTQ acceptance and equality, but on some issues, the LGBTQ community is overreacting. Demanding that schools notify parents of possible gender dysphoria and prohibiting puberty blockers for minors are two examples.
Teens experiencing angst and who insist that it's gender dysphoria need our help...our cautious help in accordance with AAP guidelines. There should be little doubt that gender dysphoria is often misdiagnosed, with potentially damaging consequences.
I’m sorry, but my newsletter is not a space to “debate” trans people’s existence. You’re repeating falsehoods. Please take time to learn before commenting on topics about which you clearly are not properly informed.
Next up, banning Spanish because nouns and adjectives have to agree on gender.
Until the mid 20th century, gender was only used in the context of grammar. Feminists looked for a word that would describe the social characteristics associated with male and female, not the chromosomes, sperm, or eggs, and hit upon gender. It is a perfectly good use of the work previously NOT associated with sex. In today's society and those states, anything a feminist came up with is bound to be doomed.
We'll soon be back to trains for boys only and dolls for girls only.
These same anti transgender & anti LGBTQ laws are being discussed in every Red state that gets their pre-written hate bills sent to them by ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council. I live in Iowa. Our majority Republican legislature is discussing & will pass many of these bills because despite these bills lacking public support from a majority of Iowans, Republicans have a supermajority in both the Iowa House & Senate & our governor, Kim Reynolds, who is as mean spirited as Trump is, is asking that these bills get passed. The Republican Party would cease to exist is they were not marketing & uniting other base around hate against various minorities in the IS population.
Indeed — though it’s not just ALEC at this point. I’ve been covering these anti-LGBTQ (and pro-equality) bills for a long time now, but, as I’ve discussed previously, my focus here is on bills that have been passed by at least one chamber of a legislature, because they are the bills most likely to become law.
This is quite frankly horrific. It never fails to shock me how much hate people have or how threatened they can be by change.
Echoes of Nazi Germany😢
Are pink triangles in the works? 😬
actually they are (though not sure of the color or shape) in the form of notations on drivers' licenses. Lapels will not be far behind.
Oh yeah, I forgot, Florida has already done that😢
How does one outlaw someone from “adopting a theory”?!
Thought police? 😬
I share most of your views here, especially that the intent of these laws is clearly "anti-LGBTQ," but the laws you call "forced outing" are reasonable. School officials should be required to inform caregivers when they become aware of a student's possible gender dysphoria. Alternatively, they can help the student obtain court ordered independence if circumstances suggest the child-caregiver relationship is injurious to the child's best interests. Surely, you don't intend to suggest that school officials effectively substitute for a student's caregiver by not notifying them regarding any important medical issue.
Besides this disagreement, I think important context is missing when you criticize laws prohibiting minors from accessing gender-affirming medical interventions. Legislators should never interfere with any doctor-patient relationship, but it's important to clarify that these laws don't prohibit "Gender-Affirmitive Care" as outlined in the American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines (https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/142/4/e20182162/37381/Ensuring-Comprehensive-Care-and-Support-for?autologincheck=redirected), which is essentially "talk therapy." They only prohibit the next phase of treatment, "Medical Management." Those include puberty blockers.
The AAP guidelines also recommend against puberty blockers for young people (especially prepubescents), as they go to great lengths to explain the importance of "Developmental Considerations." It is critical to note that the FDA has not approved puberty blockers for the treatment of gender dysphoria, ostensibly because they have serious side effects, most prominently in bone and brain development. Moreover, from 2017-2021, diagnosis of gender dysphoria among children from 6 to 17 years old has increased by an unbelievable 9 fold! Clearly, widespread misdiagnoses is strongly suggested.
It's unfortunate that Republican legislators have passed ill-conceived legislation (and with nefarious intent), but it's equally as unfortunate that important context is often missed by critics of that legislation. Our LGBTQ children deserve unbiased support.
You're basically just trolling here, Clarence.
First, the discussion of the forced outing bills is the singling out of gender identity for differential treatment. It's a standalone provisions that *only* applies to gender identity and none of the other hundreds of things children explore when growing up. It puts additional requirements on teachers and puts additional incentives on students to hide questions about gender identity from adults. That's bad, on two fronts.
As to your other point, I state specifically, "gender-affirming medical care," distinguishing what is being banned. Also: I've also written about 100 posts on this topic, so, yes, we're all aware of what is being banned — for now, at least — when we say "gender-affirming medical care." It is puberty blockers, cross hormones, and surgery. No one is missing the context; you just felt the need to raise quibbles where no one had questions.
I'm disappointed you view my challenge as "trolling." I've only recently subscribed to your Substack so I don't know if that's characteristic of you. My challenge is respectful and well meaning.
State laws mandating that schools notify parents of a student's potential gender dysphoria are necessarily "singling out" that condition because there's a need to declare that it's included under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). As you know, for good, widely-accepted reasons schools can be sued and lose federal funding if they withhold medical information from parents.
All states should pass similar laws because youngsters claiming "gender dysphoria" is arguably a modern social contagion. That's a reasonable conclusion from the fact that the diagnosis of gender dysphoria is incredibly 9 times higher in 2021 than 2017! That's a remarkable and very telling statistic (albeit, "telling of what," is unresolved).
Schools need to know that it's a medical condition within FERPA.
State laws prohibiting puberty blockers for minors are not only reasonable but advisable. That's an easy assertion to make because the FDA does not approve them for treatment of gender dysphoria. They're not approved for youngsters because they have serious side effects experienced during development, namely bone loss and brain development (the consequences of the latter being especially troublesome because it's difficult to nail down).
You're not alone in your angry (over)reaction to my disagreement with you regarding these specific Republican-led laws you call "anti-LGBTQ" (which is an agreeable descriptor because, unlike me, many Republicans have bad intent). That's not going to deter me. I am a supporter of LGBTQ acceptance and equality, but on some issues, the LGBTQ community is overreacting. Demanding that schools notify parents of possible gender dysphoria and prohibiting puberty blockers for minors are two examples.
Teens experiencing angst and who insist that it's gender dysphoria need our help...our cautious help in accordance with AAP guidelines. There should be little doubt that gender dysphoria is often misdiagnosed, with potentially damaging consequences.
I’m sorry, but my newsletter is not a space to “debate” trans people’s existence. You’re repeating falsehoods. Please take time to learn before commenting on topics about which you clearly are not properly informed.
Next up, banning Spanish because nouns and adjectives have to agree on gender.
Until the mid 20th century, gender was only used in the context of grammar. Feminists looked for a word that would describe the social characteristics associated with male and female, not the chromosomes, sperm, or eggs, and hit upon gender. It is a perfectly good use of the work previously NOT associated with sex. In today's society and those states, anything a feminist came up with is bound to be doomed.
We'll soon be back to trains for boys only and dolls for girls only.
These same anti transgender & anti LGBTQ laws are being discussed in every Red state that gets their pre-written hate bills sent to them by ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council. I live in Iowa. Our majority Republican legislature is discussing & will pass many of these bills because despite these bills lacking public support from a majority of Iowans, Republicans have a supermajority in both the Iowa House & Senate & our governor, Kim Reynolds, who is as mean spirited as Trump is, is asking that these bills get passed. The Republican Party would cease to exist is they were not marketing & uniting other base around hate against various minorities in the IS population.
Indeed — though it’s not just ALEC at this point. I’ve been covering these anti-LGBTQ (and pro-equality) bills for a long time now, but, as I’ve discussed previously, my focus here is on bills that have been passed by at least one chamber of a legislature, because they are the bills most likely to become law.