5 ms·

Alabama legislature advances bills that would outlaw trans medical care

vmception 6y ago
It is strange that it doesn't seem to allow parents to approve treatment either. From my perspective, I have been torn between allowing minors to get life-changing treatment without some adult's approval (besides the doctor), just because the longer term consequences are generally not perceivable for the child yet. This has nothing to do with hormones treatments specifically. But on the topic of transitioning, just like with some other treatments, I understand why it is available in some states, as it can be dangerous for the child if the parent/guardian knows. I'm still surprised this particular bill would go as far as to not even allow that option. I mean, not surprised by Alabama and I don't respect their people, representatives, legislative process or their courts, but this still seems distinctly malicious.
- pyinstallwoes 6y ago
  I think more states and cities should be more biased in their form of opinion. That's really the beauty of what the USA is from the technical perspective. I'd actually split more states into "city" as the highest form of government. That way each group of people can handle law and bias as they expect. Otherwise you are coercing too large of a population into conflicting views. The most agreeable way forward is to respect people's biases and go where you find it most comfortable. So in this case, cool for them, now find a city/state that allows treatment.
  - smt88 6y ago
    You could make this same argument to support segregation or Jim Crow laws. And, in fact, many Black people did move north to get away from those laws. But you know what? That doesn't solve the problem. You can't just ask people to leave their family homes, which also costs a lot of money and requires leaving behind a job. You can't just have "discrimination zones" in the country, where local jurisdictions get to decide that they violate human rights. Where people choose to live is not an Econ 101 "efficient market".
    - pyinstallwoes 6y ago
      I think you're fighting an impossible problem. Yeah, you can ask people to leave. That's the best way to do it. It will balance out fine this way. You can absolutely have discrimination zones, why do I have to share my space with others I don't want? It's human nature, stop fighting it. The losing battle is coercing a majority into uniform perspectives which is impossible.
      - smt88 6y ago
        > You can absolutely have discrimination zones, why do I have to share my space with others I don't want? Just to be clear: 1) You already have the right to do this as long as you're not a government entity or a business. 2) You seem to have a "live and let live" philosophy, which I also do. That's the problem with this bill. It is not letting people live -- it's taking away their right to privately seek medical treatment for a serious, life-threatening issue. It's amazing how "libertarians" suddenly become very pro-government when the government is enforcing something they like.
        lprocd 6y ago
        > It's amazing how "libertarians" suddenly become very pro-government when the government is enforcing something they like. Stallman has been vilified for suggesting that young teenagers can consent, which he (fortunately) retracted. I'm surprised that irreversible surgery is something that teenagers can generally consent to in the USA.
        smt88 6y ago
        So, again... Consenting to therapeutic surgery with the extensive oversight of multiple doctors is ABSOLUTELY NOT ANALOGOUS to an adult raping a child. If you don't see the difference in those two scenarios, I don't think it's worthwhile to argue with you further.
spinach 6y ago
It's to safeguard children. They can do whatever they want as adults. And of course males should not be on teams for women, what is the point of women's sports then?
- smt88 6y ago
  Why should the government insert itself between these patients and their doctors? How are lawyers writing legislation qualified to pre-determine the outcomes of these doctor visits? Do you have evidence that this safeguards children? > And of course males should not be on teams for women, what is the point of women's sports then? There is no "point" to any children's sport. It's a way to get exercise, entertainment, and a better understanding of teamwork. If a child identifies as a girl, looks like other girls, and has been treated by a doctor to have a body that matches their brain, why should anyone force them to play on a boys' team?
  - adamcstephens 6y ago
    > Why should the government insert itself between these patients and their doctors? Because this is what we've accepted and allowed for many decades? The government controls prescriptions, standards, certification, etc. You may not like some of the laws, but probably agree with others. I'm making no statement on the topic from the article, just pointing out that we've long given government the power to regulate health care decisions.
    - smt88 6y ago
      The difference is that doctors are given discretion with any safe treatment. They can give drugs off-label, for example. Alabama is trying to ban all known treatments for trans people. There is no analog for that because it is based on the underlying condition, not the treatment. Even in the war on drugs, where drug use is often criminalized, there is not a blanket ban on all treatments for drug addiction. In fact, doctors can give people highly addictive drugs to get them off of even-more-addictive drugs.
      - 6y ago
tomp 6y ago
Click-bait title. AFAIK this and similar bills outlaw what could be termed “body modification” for under-18 children - which is roughly in line with overall limitations on the freedoms of underage individuals (e.g. regarding technically-consensual sex, or vulva surgery - which is legally “female circumcision” if performed on underage women). Obviously the specific facts differ (the whole point of hormone blockers is to be taken before puberty) but to term it “outlawing trans medical care” is highly politically charged and completely misleading.
- smt88 6y ago
  Absolutely not click-bait. The title reflects the intent and content of the bills. The Alabama legislature is vocally against the concept of transgenderism. > AFAIK this and similar bills outlaw what could be termed “body modification” for under-18 children Surgery recommended by a doctor is not "body modification," it is medical treatment. Also, this goes far beyond surgery. It also outlaws the use of prescription drugs. > roughly in line with overall limitations on the freedoms of underage individuals (e.g. regarding technically-consensual sex, or vulva surgery - which is legally “female circumcision” if performed on underage women First of all, minors can have consensual, legal sex... with each other. Age-of-consent laws are intended to protect children from adults, not from themselves. I don't see what this has to do with anything, because it's unrelated to a medical condition and doesn't require a doctor to carefully manage it. Second, "female circumcision" is not "vulva surgery," it is usually mutilation of the clitoris intended to eliminate female pleasure. It is not something a minor would (or could) seek as a treatment for any medical condition.
  - xxxxxyy1 6y ago
    > The Alabama legislature is vocally against the concept of transgenderism. You're against the concept of child body preservation.
    - smt88 6y ago
      I'm not a doctor, but my understanding is that trans people still have bodies after they transition. Do you disagree?
smt88 6y ago
I think this is an important issue, but I'm flagging it because it doesn't seem like a fit for HN. Most of the site is currently dominated by culture-war articles, and this unfortunately has never been a venue that generates interesting discussions about those topics.
- ryandvm 6y ago
  Jesus, if we can't hope to have meaningful discussion on a topic, who can?
  - smt88 6y ago
    I think that on technical issues, HN has great discussions that far exceed any other place. On social issues, threads tend to get brigaded, people talk past each other, and generally nothing new/constructive is added. I think this site specifically attracts people who are not deeply knowledgeable about (or interested in) the nuances of social issues, and the consequence is that the discussions are poor. I don't think that's a bad thing. You can have great, substantive discussions elsewhere. It would be nice (and consistent with HN guidelines) to have a place that isn't an incessant culture war.
  - anthony_d 6y ago
    I completely fail to see this mindset. What is it that makes people with tech related jobs feel like they're superior to others?
- ykevinator 6y ago
  The hall monitors versus the pearl clutchers
cool1n 6y ago
What a joke of a title. Absolutely disgraceful. They should absolutely be banned for children. Pathetic title

It is strange that it doesn't seem to allow parents to approve treatment either. From my perspective, I have been torn between allowing minors to get life-changing treatment without some adult's approval (besides the doctor), just because the longer term consequences are generally not perceivable for the child yet. This has nothing to do with hormones treatments specifically. But on the topic of transitioning, just like with some other treatments, I understand why it is available in some states, as it can be dangerous for the child if the parent/guardian knows. I'm still surprised this particular bill would go as far as to not even allow that option. I mean, not surprised by Alabama and I don't respect their people, representatives, legislative process or their courts, but this still seems distinctly malicious.

pyinstallwoes 6y ago
I think more states and cities should be more biased in their form of opinion. That's really the beauty of what the USA is from the technical perspective. I'd actually split more states into "city" as the highest form of government. That way each group of people can handle law and bias as they expect. Otherwise you are coercing too large of a population into conflicting views. The most agreeable way forward is to respect people's biases and go where you find it most comfortable. So in this case, cool for them, now find a city/state that allows treatment.
- smt88 6y ago
  You could make this same argument to support segregation or Jim Crow laws. And, in fact, many Black people did move north to get away from those laws. But you know what? That doesn't solve the problem. You can't just ask people to leave their family homes, which also costs a lot of money and requires leaving behind a job. You can't just have "discrimination zones" in the country, where local jurisdictions get to decide that they violate human rights. Where people choose to live is not an Econ 101 "efficient market".
  - pyinstallwoes 6y ago
    I think you're fighting an impossible problem. Yeah, you can ask people to leave. That's the best way to do it. It will balance out fine this way. You can absolutely have discrimination zones, why do I have to share my space with others I don't want? It's human nature, stop fighting it. The losing battle is coercing a majority into uniform perspectives which is impossible.
    - smt88 6y ago
      > You can absolutely have discrimination zones, why do I have to share my space with others I don't want? Just to be clear: 1) You already have the right to do this as long as you're not a government entity or a business. 2) You seem to have a "live and let live" philosophy, which I also do. That's the problem with this bill. It is not letting people live -- it's taking away their right to privately seek medical treatment for a serious, life-threatening issue. It's amazing how "libertarians" suddenly become very pro-government when the government is enforcing something they like.
      - lprocd 6y ago
        > It's amazing how "libertarians" suddenly become very pro-government when the government is enforcing something they like. Stallman has been vilified for suggesting that young teenagers can consent, which he (fortunately) retracted. I'm surprised that irreversible surgery is something that teenagers can generally consent to in the USA.
        smt88 6y ago
        So, again... Consenting to therapeutic surgery with the extensive oversight of multiple doctors is ABSOLUTELY NOT ANALOGOUS to an adult raping a child. If you don't see the difference in those two scenarios, I don't think it's worthwhile to argue with you further.

spinach 6y ago

It's to safeguard children. They can do whatever they want as adults. And of course males should not be on teams for women, what is the point of women's sports then?

smt88 6y ago
Why should the government insert itself between these patients and their doctors? How are lawyers writing legislation qualified to pre-determine the outcomes of these doctor visits? Do you have evidence that this safeguards children? > And of course males should not be on teams for women, what is the point of women's sports then? There is no "point" to any children's sport. It's a way to get exercise, entertainment, and a better understanding of teamwork. If a child identifies as a girl, looks like other girls, and has been treated by a doctor to have a body that matches their brain, why should anyone force them to play on a boys' team?
- adamcstephens 6y ago
  > Why should the government insert itself between these patients and their doctors? Because this is what we've accepted and allowed for many decades? The government controls prescriptions, standards, certification, etc. You may not like some of the laws, but probably agree with others. I'm making no statement on the topic from the article, just pointing out that we've long given government the power to regulate health care decisions.
  - smt88 6y ago
    The difference is that doctors are given discretion with any safe treatment. They can give drugs off-label, for example. Alabama is trying to ban all known treatments for trans people. There is no analog for that because it is based on the underlying condition, not the treatment. Even in the war on drugs, where drug use is often criminalized, there is not a blanket ban on all treatments for drug addiction. In fact, doctors can give people highly addictive drugs to get them off of even-more-addictive drugs.
    - 6y ago

tomp 6y ago

Click-bait title. AFAIK this and similar bills outlaw what could be termed “body modification” for under-18 children - which is roughly in line with overall limitations on the freedoms of underage individuals (e.g. regarding technically-consensual sex, or vulva surgery - which is legally “female circumcision” if performed on underage women). Obviously the specific facts differ (the whole point of hormone blockers is to be taken before puberty) but to term it “outlawing trans medical care” is highly politically charged and completely misleading.

smt88 6y ago
Absolutely not click-bait. The title reflects the intent and content of the bills. The Alabama legislature is vocally against the concept of transgenderism. > AFAIK this and similar bills outlaw what could be termed “body modification” for under-18 children Surgery recommended by a doctor is not "body modification," it is medical treatment. Also, this goes far beyond surgery. It also outlaws the use of prescription drugs. > roughly in line with overall limitations on the freedoms of underage individuals (e.g. regarding technically-consensual sex, or vulva surgery - which is legally “female circumcision” if performed on underage women First of all, minors can have consensual, legal sex... with each other. Age-of-consent laws are intended to protect children from adults, not from themselves. I don't see what this has to do with anything, because it's unrelated to a medical condition and doesn't require a doctor to carefully manage it. Second, "female circumcision" is not "vulva surgery," it is usually mutilation of the clitoris intended to eliminate female pleasure. It is not something a minor would (or could) seek as a treatment for any medical condition.
- xxxxxyy1 6y ago
  > The Alabama legislature is vocally against the concept of transgenderism. You're against the concept of child body preservation.
  - smt88 6y ago
    I'm not a doctor, but my understanding is that trans people still have bodies after they transition. Do you disagree?

smt88 6y ago

I think this is an important issue, but I'm flagging it because it doesn't seem like a fit for HN. Most of the site is currently dominated by culture-war articles, and this unfortunately has never been a venue that generates interesting discussions about those topics.

ryandvm 6y ago
Jesus, if we can't hope to have meaningful discussion on a topic, who can?
- smt88 6y ago
  I think that on technical issues, HN has great discussions that far exceed any other place. On social issues, threads tend to get brigaded, people talk past each other, and generally nothing new/constructive is added. I think this site specifically attracts people who are not deeply knowledgeable about (or interested in) the nuances of social issues, and the consequence is that the discussions are poor. I don't think that's a bad thing. You can have great, substantive discussions elsewhere. It would be nice (and consistent with HN guidelines) to have a place that isn't an incessant culture war.
- anthony_d 6y ago
  I completely fail to see this mindset. What is it that makes people with tech related jobs feel like they're superior to others?
ykevinator 6y ago
The hall monitors versus the pearl clutchers

cool1n 6y ago

What a joke of a title. Absolutely disgraceful. They should absolutely be banned for children. Pathetic title