EPTSo I'm not saying that the profit motive isn't a corrupting factor in the US, but the claim that puberty blockers and hrt wouldn't be a thing if America had socialized health care seems countered by both existing in countries that have socialized health care. Maybe the claim is that they wouldn't have been developed outside a for profit system I guess, that'd be logically consistent..
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3996
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28785 Posts
So I'm not saying that the profit motive isn't a corrupting factor in the US, but the claim that puberty blockers and hrt wouldn't be a thing if America had socialized health care seems countered by both existing in countries that have socialized health care. Maybe the claim is that they wouldn't have been developed outside a for profit system I guess, that'd be logically consistent.. | ||
KwarK
United States43906 Posts
On July 07 2023 10:35 Falling wrote: Yeeeah, we don't frame it that way because that is an... incredible... way of describing basic human processes. We also don't choose to be born, when to walk, we don't choose to turn on our language acquisition ability or to connect that synapse or prune the other one. The body has a developmental process that marches on so successfully that people have started calling the human race a virus of all things. The idea that that very successful process could be compared in any meaningful way as to the dangers of taking hard drugs really beggars belief. And quite frankly if puberty is a significant decision on par with taking hard drugs, shouldn't everybody be deferred until they are older to make such a life changing decision? I also am rather doubtful that it's quite as simple as 'deferring' puberty as though we simply hit pause/ unpause, no consequences at all. The body has a reproductive process that marches on so successfully that people have started calling the human race a virus of all things and yet we undo all of that with condoms because we're not animals. Evolutionary success of the species is not a good benchmark for social policy, that's why we don't work harder and harder every year to increase teen pregnancy rates. We don't choose our own births as that would violate causality but we do choose when to give birth. Your own examples undermine your point. And as women will tell you, pregnancy is incredibly tough on the body, it would be reasonable to compare the seriousness of that decision with a decision to start doing hard drugs. Basic human processes can also be choices and they can be choices that have extremely significant consequences. And yes, there likely is an argument to be made that teen puberty is probably not optimal in a world in which we could choose to defer it. We already use hormone blockers to treat precocious puberty in individuals whose bodies trigger puberty too young and nobody complains about that. It's just a question of how young is too young. I'm not planning to legislate that we drug the population with hormone blockers to enforce delayed puberty on everyone but it's weird that people on the right are trying to force sex hormones on children who don't want them yet. Delaying it until they're older and able to make the right choice for themselves seems like the kind of thing people on the right would go for and yet they're desperate for confused 12 year olds to get flooded with hormones that make them stupid and sexually exploitable. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
| ||
|
ZeroByte13
795 Posts
On July 07 2023 07:39 Mohdoo wrote: John told Maria and Angela he needs to visit boss today.No I'm saying if we released a patch tomorrow where the words were magically erased from English as if they never existed, nothing negative would occur. John told Maria and Angela they need to visit boss today. I see many, many cases when using he/she makes sentences like this much clearer, don't you agree? Of course you could argue there are workaround, like using names. John told Maria and Angela that John need to visit boss today. (sounds clumsy though) John told Maria, Angela and Elena that Maria, Angela and Elena need to visit boss today. (super clumsy) I'm pretty sure that if I was forced to not use he/she when talking to the people I know, it would make our communication significantly more complex and less clear. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43906 Posts
On July 07 2023 16:05 BlackJack wrote: Using science to make drugs that can be given to children to delay the natural onset of puberty sounds very much not like something conservatives would go for Hormones are drugs. They're chemicals that your body reacts to. Just because your body makes them doesn't mean they're not, just like how insulin or adrenaline or endorphins are drugs. With that in mind, hormone blockers seem more like anti-drugs than drugs to me. You take them and your body stays the same. But either way, we're not talking about anything more than choice here. Giving people the choice over what chemicals they want ravaging their body and the option to not have any chemicals ravaging their body if they don't want them. Aren't you guys meant to like choice? | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4751 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States43906 Posts
On July 07 2023 16:45 Silvanel wrote: Most hormon blocking drugs are really hard on the body and have some really serious side effects (especially during puberty). They really shouldnt be given to anyone without proper medical reason. I'm not advocating for forcing them on anyone. I'm advocating against politicians in the US banning doctors from prescribing them to people who want them. The American conservative movement believes that politicians have the right to decide medical care for trans kids. I disagree. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On July 07 2023 16:25 KwarK wrote: Hormones are drugs. They're chemicals that your body reacts to. Just because your body makes them doesn't mean they're not, just like how insulin or adrenaline or endorphins are drugs. With that in mind, hormone blockers seem more like anti-drugs than drugs to me. You take them and your body stays the same. But either way, we're not talking about anything more than choice here. Giving people the choice over what chemicals they want ravaging their body and the option to not have any chemicals ravaging their body if they don't want them. Aren't you guys meant to like choice? Yes it does. Drugs are the things that are produced outside of the body and are then administered to the body to cause an affect. The insulin your pancreas produces is not a drug. You're usually Mr. "words have meanings." I remember you explaining to Stealthblue after he used the term recession incorrectly, "We have a bunch of different words with different meanings and it’s important to use the ones with meanings that match what we’re trying to say." But as soon as it serves your argument then suddenly naturally occurring hormones are "drugs" and women can have penises and men can get pregnant. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3304 Posts
On July 07 2023 16:25 KwarK wrote: Hormones are drugs. They're chemicals that your body reacts to. Just because your body makes them doesn't mean they're not, just like how insulin or adrenaline or endorphins are drugs. With that in mind, hormone blockers seem more like anti-drugs than drugs to me. You take them and your body stays the same. But either way, we're not talking about anything more than choice here. Giving people the choice over what chemicals they want ravaging their body and the option to not have any chemicals ravaging their body if they don't want them. Aren't you guys meant to like choice? I don’t think you’re gonna get far with “they’re anti-drugs, not drugs.” Antagonists are kind of a big percentage of the pharmacopeia, I don’t think anybody would normally consider them “not really drugs” just because they’re blocking a receptor rather than activating it. Puberty blockers are drugs like any other. They’re safe and effective, we’ve prescribed them for decades to kids for precocious puberty. Like any drug they’ve got side effects, and it’s up to patients and doctors (and patients’ parents, depending) to decide what’s best. If I thought puberty was going to do long-term damage to my body I might never fully undo, I’d probably consider the tradeoff worth it. Some trans people take decades to figure out who they are, others are pretty confident about it at like age 5 and never really waver. In the latter case, I think forcing them to go through unwanted puberty because “what if they change their minds??? *clutches pearls*” is fucked. I understand a rule like “we’re gonna put you on puberty blockers for a year before we just jump straight into hormonal interventions,” but a blanket ban on childhood interventions would be fucking devastating for a lot of these kids. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43906 Posts
On July 07 2023 17:08 BlackJack wrote: Yes it does. Drugs are the things that are produced outside of the body and are then administered to the body to cause an affect. The insulin your pancreas produces is not a drug. You're usually Mr. "words have meanings." I remember you explaining to Stealthblue after he used the term recession incorrectly, "We have a bunch of different words with different meanings and it’s important to use the ones with meanings that match what we’re trying to say." But as soon as it serves your argument then suddenly naturally occurring hormones are "drugs" and women can have penises and men can get pregnant. Words do have meanings but you’re not in charge of defining them. That attempted gotcha is also completely irrelevant to my point. Call them chemicals that induce a physiological response if it makes you happier. The point is that these chemicals are extremely potent and permanently alter the physical and mental state of the children exposed to them. Any argument that claims that these children are old enough to have their bodies ravaged by these chemicals must also concede that they’re old enough to not have their bodies ravaged by them. | ||
|
ZeroByte13
795 Posts
I.e. every definition I found says "given to a person", "consumed", "in order to have a desired effect", i.e. everything points at being created outside of the body. I guess it's possible to find a definition that will mention "or produced by your body", but it seems like at least vast majority of definitions don't say that. But definition of drugs was not the point of this discussion in general, I guess. So I (we) digress. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On July 07 2023 17:24 KwarK wrote: Words do have meanings but you’re not in charge of defining them. That attempted gotcha is also completely irrelevant to my point. Call them chemicals that induce a physiological response if it makes you happier. The point is that these chemicals are extremely potent and permanently alter the physical and mental state of the children exposed to them. Any argument that claims that these children are old enough to have their bodies ravaged by these chemicals must also concede that they’re old enough to not have their bodies ravaged by them. That wasn't a gotcha. I was going for something between a "pwn the libs" and a "/mic drop." | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45541 Posts
On July 07 2023 16:25 KwarK wrote: Hormones are drugs. They're chemicals that your body reacts to. Just because your body makes them doesn't mean they're not, just like how insulin or adrenaline or endorphins are drugs. With that in mind, hormone blockers seem more like anti-drugs than drugs to me. You take them and your body stays the same. But either way, we're not talking about anything more than choice here. Giving people the choice over what chemicals they want ravaging their body and the option to not have any chemicals ravaging their body if they don't want them. Aren't you guys meant to like choice? I'm also a little hesitant to use the term "drugs" to describe hormones naturally produced within a body, perhaps because conversations about drugs tend towards decriminalization, legalization, over-the-counter medication, prescription, big pharma, and all those other buzzwords/topics. Hormones are chemicals and drugs have chemicals too (because just about everything is chemistry lol), but I'd distinguish between "naturally producing hormones" and "voluntarily taking drugs". Also, thankfully, I don't really think the semantics centering around using the term "drugs" makes or breaks your arguments or perspectives anyway, so it may not be a hill worth dying on, if it'll only end up derailing your points. | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28785 Posts
On July 07 2023 17:12 ChristianS wrote: I don’t think you’re gonna get far with “they’re anti-drugs, not drugs.” Antagonists are kind of a big percentage of the pharmacopeia, I don’t think anybody would normally consider them “not really drugs” just because they’re blocking a receptor rather than activating it. Puberty blockers are drugs like any other. They’re safe and effective, we’ve prescribed them for decades to kids for precocious puberty. Like any drug they’ve got side effects, and it’s up to patients and doctors (and patients’ parents, depending) to decide what’s best. If I thought puberty was going to do long-term damage to my body I might never fully undo, I’d probably consider the tradeoff worth it. Some trans people take decades to figure out who they are, others are pretty confident about it at like age 5 and never really waver. In the latter case, I think forcing them to go through unwanted puberty because “what if they change their minds??? *clutches pearls*” is fucked. I understand a rule like “we’re gonna put you on puberty blockers for a year before we just jump straight into hormonal interventions,” but a blanket ban on childhood interventions would be fucking devastating for a lot of these kids. Yeah I think the central debate isn't whether puberty blockers and hormonal treatment should ever be administered, but when it should be and when it should not be. I don't think 'the science' is settled on this one. In Sweden they saw an uptick in girl's aged 13-17 who requested puberty blockers and they became more restrictive with administering them, under the reasoning that for girls who first reported a feeling of gender dysphoria at this age, more of them would regret treatment. However, for children who feel that way from they are 3 years old, it's basically never 'just a phase'. Norway disagrees with Sweden and has become more liberal in the same time period. I'm not arguing either side. I think the 'when do children get full authority to make their own decisions' is a tricky question, and especially if it concerns undergoing treatment that should ideally be administered before they normally get to make decisions of that nature. Trusting the medical community is fine and reasonable, but this doesn't look like a global warming type of consensus, at the very least there will be individuals where some recommend treatment and others do not. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4478 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45541 Posts
On July 07 2023 18:30 Magic Powers wrote: The key question is whether a person can lead a life worth living. Everything else is secondary. It doesn't matter if it's their own body or a foreign substance causing them harm. That's a fair point, and I do think we're all aware that there are risks and concerns attached to both scenarios: taking puberty blockers in the first place, as well as not allowing anyone to take puberty blockers at all. I hope that medical research continues to develop and let us know what the pros and cons are, as well as if there are ways to mitigate the risks to taking puberty blockers, so that more people can be comfortable taking (and letting their teenagers take) them, if the situation calls for it. I think people are even more cautious than usual because the target demographic is kids experiencing a significant medical decision, and parents may not understand the pros and cons of this whole conversation, especially if they're anti-trans and don't want to engage at all. | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium5096 Posts
On July 07 2023 18:30 Magic Powers wrote: The key question is whether a person can lead a life worth living. Everything else is secondary. It doesn't matter if it's their own body or a foreign substance causing them harm. Big problem is that children, and humans in general, have difficulties with knowing what a change will do for their mental state in the long term. I feel like regretting taking hormone blockers or HRT will have a long lasting impact on your mental state and there should be sufficient insight in the requestor before every party complies. It's obviously going to be a subset, but a subset there needs to be a safety check built in for. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4478 Posts
On July 07 2023 20:06 Uldridge wrote: Big problem is that children, and humans in general, have difficulties with knowing what a change will do for their mental state in the long term. I feel like regretting taking hormone blockers or HRT will have a long lasting impact on your mental state and there should be sufficient insight in the requestor before every party complies. It's obviously going to be a subset, but a subset there needs to be a safety check built in for. We have safety checks. The children are being evaluated numerous times throughout their journey, and they receive the combined protection of their parents and the psychiatrists treating them. What more can be done? | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On July 07 2023 16:51 KwarK wrote: I'm not advocating for forcing them on anyone. I'm advocating against politicians in the US banning doctors from prescribing them to people who want them. The American conservative movement believes that politicians have the right to decide medical care for trans kids. I disagree. Doctors are proven bad actors on this particular question. If the guild of lobotomizers was somehow still considered respectable, there would be no difference between them and the AMA. | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4751 Posts
Can You elaborate a little? What do You mean that doctors "are proven bad actors"? | ||
| ||
