Sanity returning to politics at last. Why it should be controversial to assert that children can't make adult decisions is a testament to the power of the gender ideology indoctrination we've all been subjected to, particularly over the last 10 years or so. Humans can be convinced of virtually anything if authority figures assure them it's true and even more so when the penalty for not believing is social opprobrium (i.e. being called a "transphobe"). Danielle Smith is one cool character, able to calmly articulate the rationale for this bill despite the hysterical reactions of her detractors, including among the media. She's far more courageous than the overwhelming majority of Australian politicians. Hats off to her.
Federal Health Minister Mark Holland said he was “deeply disturbed” by Alberta’s proposed policy, which he claimed “places kids at risk [because] problems around sexual identity” were a leading cause of youth suicide.
“So, affirming gender, making sure that kids and families have the healthcare they need on extremely sensitive issues, is so very important,” Mr Holland said.”
And this is exactly how parents are scared into supporting affirmation albeit reluctantly for their children
But there is no evidence at all, not even a suggestion that affirmation reduces the suicide risk of these children.
So claims by proponents that it does is fraudulent and should be forbidden in any consent discussions with these children and their parents.
I wonder if Health Minister Holland is aware of the the good news that there is has been no documented case of child suicide related to gender dysphoria in Australia?
Perhaps the Ministers concern as it relates to child suicide could be directed to an ever present reality:
The age-specific death rate for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander child suicide is 8.3 deaths per 100,000 compared to 2.1 per 100,000 for non-Indigenous children.
That should be the mantra for those who want to protect children AND protect the freedom of adults to choose medical transitioning, if that is their desire.
It sounds like Premier Smith is correctly threading the needle with this policy. I certainly hope she won't follow American Republicans, like Gov. Abbott of Texas, who are trying to impose their draconian anti-transitioning policies on trans identifying adults or on minors in other jurisdictions.
As is generally the case, it is the extremes that are the problem.
Under our laws, there are different degrees of legal protection for adults and for minors, and unless you want to move the age of majority to 25 or 30, once a person has reached adulthood, they are free to make bad decisions without paternalistic second-guessing by the state. The real key here is what constitutes informed consent, and whether children can ever give such consent to procedures which are not truly based on scientific evidence and which will have life-long and irreversible consequences.
There are some procedures that shouldn't be available to anyone, regardless of maturity and informed consent. None of us can request a lobotomy these days. Medicine has an obligation to do no harm or at least, to only do as much harm as is necessary to bring about a greater good. Many currently available "gender affirming" procedures wouldn't meet this bar, most especially phalloplasty, which has a complication rate approaching 70%. Nor should these procedures be promoted and celebrated in the media as they are, and the ideology underlying gender-affirming care be entrenched in the education of helping professionals as it now is, which puts undue influence on vulnerable people, including adults. Scott Newgent's story is a case in point. She was 42 when she fell victim to this belief system, and she has paid the price in terms of health, now expecting to die before her grandkids are born due to chronic complications.
Adults are allowed to take risks that minors are not. Adults can engage in activities that are harmful to their health, like smoking tobacco and drinking alcohol, and can have unnecessary and even crippling cosmetic surgeries, but as long as they were fully informed and the surgeon followed established practices, that is their risk to take. As long as unlawful coercion or fraud are not involved, adults capable of giving consent are free to harm themselves, without the state stepping in to protect them from themselves because the state is not our nanny.
That’s true as far as it goes but it’s constrained by the medical profession’s obligation to do no harm. Hence, adults can’t expect to find a surgeon who’ll agree to attach a panther tail to their sacrum or even to remove a limb they consider alien to their bodies. Medicine is not a lolly shop where the customer is always right.
Whether it is justifiable for surgeons to amputate the limbs of BIID sufferers is under debate by medical ethicists. Given that no psychological treatment has been found to be effective, and that some BIID sufferers will try dangerous self-amputation, it might be considered a life-saving surgery. Apparently once the offending limb is gone, there is a very high rate of life satisfaction for these patients, who were experiencing unbearable distress previous to the amputation.
Currently there are virtually no surgeons who will provide such amputations. It’s not simply a matter of customer request. There’s a difference between patients and customers that we must always keep in mind.
"Currently" is a key word here; there are BIID activists who are lobbying to have that changed, asserting that they know best what will alleviate their distress. As in the case of gender reassignment, I say let the adults make their own decisions regarding what makes them happy.
Sanity returning to politics at last. Why it should be controversial to assert that children can't make adult decisions is a testament to the power of the gender ideology indoctrination we've all been subjected to, particularly over the last 10 years or so. Humans can be convinced of virtually anything if authority figures assure them it's true and even more so when the penalty for not believing is social opprobrium (i.e. being called a "transphobe"). Danielle Smith is one cool character, able to calmly articulate the rationale for this bill despite the hysterical reactions of her detractors, including among the media. She's far more courageous than the overwhelming majority of Australian politicians. Hats off to her.
Federal Health Minister Mark Holland said he was “deeply disturbed” by Alberta’s proposed policy, which he claimed “places kids at risk [because] problems around sexual identity” were a leading cause of youth suicide.
“So, affirming gender, making sure that kids and families have the healthcare they need on extremely sensitive issues, is so very important,” Mr Holland said.”
And this is exactly how parents are scared into supporting affirmation albeit reluctantly for their children
But there is no evidence at all, not even a suggestion that affirmation reduces the suicide risk of these children.
So claims by proponents that it does is fraudulent and should be forbidden in any consent discussions with these children and their parents.
I wonder if Health Minister Holland is aware of the the good news that there is has been no documented case of child suicide related to gender dysphoria in Australia?
Perhaps the Ministers concern as it relates to child suicide could be directed to an ever present reality:
The age-specific death rate for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander child suicide is 8.3 deaths per 100,000 compared to 2.1 per 100,000 for non-Indigenous children.
Leave the adults alone!
That should be the mantra for those who want to protect children AND protect the freedom of adults to choose medical transitioning, if that is their desire.
It sounds like Premier Smith is correctly threading the needle with this policy. I certainly hope she won't follow American Republicans, like Gov. Abbott of Texas, who are trying to impose their draconian anti-transitioning policies on trans identifying adults or on minors in other jurisdictions.
As is generally the case, it is the extremes that are the problem.
Minors are obviously the key vulnerability group, but adolescence & immature brains stretch into the mid-20s.
Under our laws, there are different degrees of legal protection for adults and for minors, and unless you want to move the age of majority to 25 or 30, once a person has reached adulthood, they are free to make bad decisions without paternalistic second-guessing by the state. The real key here is what constitutes informed consent, and whether children can ever give such consent to procedures which are not truly based on scientific evidence and which will have life-long and irreversible consequences.
There are some procedures that shouldn't be available to anyone, regardless of maturity and informed consent. None of us can request a lobotomy these days. Medicine has an obligation to do no harm or at least, to only do as much harm as is necessary to bring about a greater good. Many currently available "gender affirming" procedures wouldn't meet this bar, most especially phalloplasty, which has a complication rate approaching 70%. Nor should these procedures be promoted and celebrated in the media as they are, and the ideology underlying gender-affirming care be entrenched in the education of helping professionals as it now is, which puts undue influence on vulnerable people, including adults. Scott Newgent's story is a case in point. She was 42 when she fell victim to this belief system, and she has paid the price in terms of health, now expecting to die before her grandkids are born due to chronic complications.
Adults are allowed to take risks that minors are not. Adults can engage in activities that are harmful to their health, like smoking tobacco and drinking alcohol, and can have unnecessary and even crippling cosmetic surgeries, but as long as they were fully informed and the surgeon followed established practices, that is their risk to take. As long as unlawful coercion or fraud are not involved, adults capable of giving consent are free to harm themselves, without the state stepping in to protect them from themselves because the state is not our nanny.
That’s true as far as it goes but it’s constrained by the medical profession’s obligation to do no harm. Hence, adults can’t expect to find a surgeon who’ll agree to attach a panther tail to their sacrum or even to remove a limb they consider alien to their bodies. Medicine is not a lolly shop where the customer is always right.
Whether it is justifiable for surgeons to amputate the limbs of BIID sufferers is under debate by medical ethicists. Given that no psychological treatment has been found to be effective, and that some BIID sufferers will try dangerous self-amputation, it might be considered a life-saving surgery. Apparently once the offending limb is gone, there is a very high rate of life satisfaction for these patients, who were experiencing unbearable distress previous to the amputation.
Currently there are virtually no surgeons who will provide such amputations. It’s not simply a matter of customer request. There’s a difference between patients and customers that we must always keep in mind.
"Currently" is a key word here; there are BIID activists who are lobbying to have that changed, asserting that they know best what will alleviate their distress. As in the case of gender reassignment, I say let the adults make their own decisions regarding what makes them happy.