Before this year, just three state legislatures had enacted full or partial bans. In addition to the 10 signed into law, bans have passed at least one chamber of seven more state legislatures on the path toward enactment this year.
Florida’s state medical boards also issued a rule last year prohibiting doctors from offering gender-affirming care to new patients under 18. Though not a law, the decree has the same effect of ending care.
Two more state legislatures, in Oklahoma and South Carolina, have successfully pushed major hospitals to stop providing gender-affirming care for minors by linking the care to the use of public funds. …
Republican state legislators have called gender-affirming care experimental and harmful, and say that children are not mature enough to make permanent decisions.
Referring to body and personality destroying medication and chirugy as gender-affirming care is a newspeak euphemism not even Orwell could have come up with: Gender doesn’t exist except as concept in the minds of people who have been brainwashed into believing in it, nothing is being affirmed by pushing people deeper into delusions which irrevocably contradict reality and chemically castrating and ultimatively, physically mutilating their bodies for no particular reason isn’t care.
10navigator
2 years ago
Just an observation—-I note that the Mulvaney chap is keeping his options open. No reassignment surgery malarkey for him, thank you, he’s keeping his meat and two veg in case of a change of mind.The last time I checked though, a bloke who dresses as a woman was called a transvestite. What with all the transgender nonsense, and folk calling him a ‘she/her’ the latter seems to have been forgotten.
Yes I agree. If a man went the whole hog and had the complete reassignment surgery so that he could take on the persona and live as a woman permanently I’d happily oblige and refer to him as a woman, even if he’s obviously a transexual to look at ( the hands and feet size are usually the first give-away, if not the face ) because I’d be satisfied that this person is 100% committed to living this way, as opposed to just ”identifying” as female and being basically what’s always been called a ”cross-dresser”, but then wanting the same rights as women or to invade women’s personal, single-sex spaces. A good example of someone high profile is Caitlyn Jenner. Cailyn also gets my full respect because she doesn’t toe the alphabet people’s ideology line just because she’s trans and has been very vocal in defending women’s rights, particularly when it comes to competing in sports. She’s not afraid to be critical of the ridiculous woke/trans extremists and to hell with the pushback from the community of loons, so for that alone I think she’s sound. So in a nut shell, if you’re a bloke in a dress and you… Read more »
I actually think this…It seems that the wokest States are ALWAYS blue Democrat States….so let them have everything they want……the crime, having de-funded the Police, and employing a George Soros paid for judiciary…the trans-clinics…(they’ve just put into law that parents can’t stop minors from having gender affirming surgery in ‘blue’ Washington State)…..the abortion clinics ….the woke schools and universities, the masking of children…the jabbing, green policies..the news and media censorship……the whole shebang!
Then vote with your feet and just move to a Red State….and make America great again!!
My default position these days is to think that the state should stay out of consenting adults private business as long as there is no crime being committed and in the case of some bloke wanting to have his tackle chopped off you could argue there’s no victim other than the bloke himself.
On the other hand, if you get doctors involved are they not aiding and abetting in an act of self harm? Assisted suicide is illegal here and in the UK and I imagine a doctor would be struck off. Also don’t people who go badly off the rails get detained by force under the mental health laws because they present a danger to other and themselves?
I have some trouble understanding the point of your post: The purpose of health insurances is to cover health services. It’s perfectly reasonably to ban people from getting pointless and possibly, serverly damaging cosmetical surgery, at the expense of a health insurance, ie, ultimatively, at the expense of the other customers of the same company. The moment someone tells people like the author of this text that they’re not entitled to pursue their more than a bit bizarre hobbies at other people’s expense, they – predictably – start to howl how this violates their human rights in the hope that someone might perhaps fall for that.
If someone wants his face to be chirugically altered to look more like his posterior in order to reflect his true inner self, he’s absolutely entitled to do that. But only insofar he can pay for this himself. If not, well, tough shit. There are a lot of things I’d like to do if had an unlimited amount of money I cannot do because I don’t as well.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Referring to body and personality destroying medication and chirugy as gender-affirming care is a newspeak euphemism not even Orwell could have come up with: Gender doesn’t exist except as concept in the minds of people who have been brainwashed into believing in it, nothing is being affirmed by pushing people deeper into delusions which irrevocably contradict reality and chemically castrating and ultimatively, physically mutilating their bodies for no particular reason isn’t care.
Just an observation—-I note that the Mulvaney chap is keeping his options open. No reassignment surgery malarkey for him, thank you, he’s keeping his meat and two veg in case of a change of mind.The last time I checked though, a bloke who dresses as a woman was called a transvestite. What with all the transgender nonsense, and folk calling him a ‘she/her’ the latter seems to have been forgotten.
Yes I agree. If a man went the whole hog and had the complete reassignment surgery so that he could take on the persona and live as a woman permanently I’d happily oblige and refer to him as a woman, even if he’s obviously a transexual to look at ( the hands and feet size are usually the first give-away, if not the face ) because I’d be satisfied that this person is 100% committed to living this way, as opposed to just ”identifying” as female and being basically what’s always been called a ”cross-dresser”, but then wanting the same rights as women or to invade women’s personal, single-sex spaces. A good example of someone high profile is Caitlyn Jenner. Cailyn also gets my full respect because she doesn’t toe the alphabet people’s ideology line just because she’s trans and has been very vocal in defending women’s rights, particularly when it comes to competing in sports. She’s not afraid to be critical of the ridiculous woke/trans extremists and to hell with the pushback from the community of loons, so for that alone I think she’s sound. So in a nut shell, if you’re a bloke in a dress and you… Read more »
I actually think this…It seems that the wokest States are ALWAYS blue Democrat States….so let them have everything they want……the crime, having de-funded the Police, and employing a George Soros paid for judiciary…the trans-clinics…(they’ve just put into law that parents can’t stop minors from having gender affirming surgery in ‘blue’ Washington State)…..the abortion clinics ….the woke schools and universities, the masking of children…the jabbing, green policies..the news and media censorship……the whole shebang!
Then vote with your feet and just move to a Red State….and make America great again!!
They’re not supposed to have other people’s children, not even when they’re technically capable of passing laws about that.
Robert Malone wrote a harrowing piece on what treatment actually entails and it’s aftermath. Not for the faint-hearted.
https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/transgender-surgery-common-sense
Beware, though, slopes are slipperier than they appear.
https://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2023/03/24/its-not-about-protecting-the-children-anti-trans-bills-now-increasingly-target-adults/
My default position these days is to think that the state should stay out of consenting adults private business as long as there is no crime being committed and in the case of some bloke wanting to have his tackle chopped off you could argue there’s no victim other than the bloke himself.
On the other hand, if you get doctors involved are they not aiding and abetting in an act of self harm? Assisted suicide is illegal here and in the UK and I imagine a doctor would be struck off. Also don’t people who go badly off the rails get detained by force under the mental health laws because they present a danger to other and themselves?
I have some trouble understanding the point of your post: The purpose of health insurances is to cover health services. It’s perfectly reasonably to ban people from getting pointless and possibly, serverly damaging cosmetical surgery, at the expense of a health insurance, ie, ultimatively, at the expense of the other customers of the same company. The moment someone tells people like the author of this text that they’re not entitled to pursue their more than a bit bizarre hobbies at other people’s expense, they – predictably – start to howl how this violates their human rights in the hope that someone might perhaps fall for that.
If someone wants his face to be chirugically altered to look more like his posterior in order to reflect his true inner self, he’s absolutely entitled to do that. But only insofar he can pay for this himself. If not, well, tough shit. There are a lot of things I’d like to do if had an unlimited amount of money I cannot do because I don’t as well.
At least some elected politicians in America are will to push against evil
******************************
Stand in the Park Make friends & keep sane
Sundays 10.30am to 11.30am
Elms Field
near play area
Wokingham RG40 2FE