[mensetmanusman]

In the Context of politics being preference:

“ He and his pals are flat-out pushing anti-trans agendas that accuse parents of children seeking gender-affirming treatment of child abuse.”

Isn’t this, by definition, a very debatable topic with pros and cons that have to be weighed. Where one comes down, I.e. their preference for policy on this, will be informed by their background and biases.

E.g. it isn’t entirely obvious that we should give minors, who legally can not consent to many activities, access to ethically untestable non-reversible treatments.

These issues are actually the purpose of politics. E.g. it is a feature of the system that there is debate on implementing the preferences of a democracy.

[ajford]

The treatment administered to minors is reversible.

Studies show that gender-affirming treatments and care can reduce thoughts of suicide and self-harm.

No one is pushing these treatments on unwilling minors. To take away peoples' rights to these treatments is unconscionable. And to direct people to be charged or investigated for child abuse is even more so. It's just another point that puts people in fear of the authorities.

[klyrs]

> Isn’t this, by definition, a very debatable topic with pros and cons that have to be weighed.

Honestly, you're voicing for support of the person you're responding to, here. These aren't "non-issues" as GGP claimed.

But, puberty blockers, the medical treatment under fire, aren't non-reversible.

[spoils19]

I agree whole heartedly. Until we figure it out, treating it as legal abuse and punishing the parents is the way to go.