[Eisenstein]

> Reasonable, empathetic people are capable of thinking that "gender-affirming care" is an ideologically-driven phenomenon that does more harm than good.

Reasonable, empathetic people who have no experience with an issue personally should mind their own damn business regarding other people's medical decisions, especially when they themselves are actually, demonstrably (not suspectedly) ideologically motivated.

[mrangle]

>Reasonable, empathetic people who have no experience with an issue personally should mind their own damn business regarding other people's medical decisions, especially when they themselves are actually, demonstrably (not suspectedly) ideologically motivated.

Sorry, kids don't get to make medical decisions and adults don't get to make harmful decisions for them. Your rant is borderline suited to an adult, and no one else. Last, imagine couching anti-child castration and mutilation as "ideological". Competent adults label this position to as sanity.

[Eisenstein]

They aren't your kids and you have no say in how they are treated medically so it is still none of your business.

No one is castrating children. These are medically accepted practices and you are not a practicing physician and making that comparison is unhinged.

Also, plenty of babies are sexually altered when their sex is undeterminable would you advocate not doing that?

Leave medicine to physicians and their patients and stop putting your ideology and religion and gender anxiety on kids that aren't yours.

[howinteresting]

> adults don't get to make harmful decisions for them

I believe exposing children to organized religion is inherently harmful because it inhibits the development of a scientific, evidence-based temperament that I think is an important part of good moral character. Yet billions of people drag their children to churches, mosques and temples every day.

[ofcourseyoudo]

>adults don't get to make harmful decisions for them

Actually, adults that are the parents of children get to make all sorts of decisions for children, harmful and not harmful. It's literally none of your business.

[prottog]

I have several bones to pick with this stance.

First, that anyone not agreeing with your position is actually and demonstrably ideologically motivated. It may be one of the surest signs that your position is not based on reason, when you perceive it to be so blindingly clear that anyone disagreeing must have an ulterior motive. There's another commenter who said that the only way anyone could oppose their position is through stupidity, which is along the same vein.

Second, that people should mind their own damn business. I agree with this on principle, but it does have its limits. Am I wrong to be concerned about and disapproving of the practice of female genital mutilation in parts of the world? After all, it doesn't directly affect me one bit. I suppose you might consider me a cultural imperialist for thinking it a barbaric practice. Should I equally mind my own business if I see a neighbor routinely take opiates to the point of stupor? That's his medical decision, and one that I have no experience with personally.

At some point, the line between well-meaning non-judgmentalism and craven indifference is blurred. I want to help repair the social fabric in this country because I feel it is torn and tattered. The way to do that is through open dialogue on what I think is right and wrong. I can admit that this can be taken too far, and has been in the past on many matters. What you suggest is that I keep it to myself and don't condemn others, no matter what I see, because everyone walks in their own pair of shoes. I'm not convinced that this is the better way; at least one that doesn't end up in a world where everyone only cares about themselves.

To put another way: can you imagine a fast-spreading, medically-involved phenomenon that affects minors in the long term that you would be concerned about, even if you had no personal experience with it? Or is such a thing not possible in your view?

[Eisenstein]

> First, that anyone not agreeing with your position is actually and demonstrably ideologically motivated. I

I said that the people who were doing were demonstrably ideologically motivated. This is because it is true and evidenced. This has nothing to do with how I feel.

> Am I wrong to be concerned about and disapproving of the practice of female genital mutilation in parts of the world?

Is FGM a medically accepted practice? No? Then it has no relevance to this discussion.

> At some point, the line between well-meaning non-judgmentalism and craven indifference is blurred.

This is ideologically motivated people advocating that politicians and laypeople legislate medical decision making that should be between a doctor and his patient and their guardians. Whatever else is drummed up by comparing it to barbaric practices ask yourself this: would you want a politician telling you what is medically appropriate for your child?

[ptero]

As parents, myself and my wife get to make medical decisions for our children until they become adults.

I saw a lot of push and propaganda in schools to subvert this setup, for my kids in the name of ideology. This is now the #1 issue for me to push back on. Just a single data point.

[howinteresting]

Schools aren't involved in medical transition.

edit, responding to below:

By "heavy advertising" do you mean letting kids know it is a thing that exists? Because that's just teaching kids the facts of life, something schools have a responsibility to do (since apparently you're not willing to tell your kids that medical transition exists?) It falls under the same bucket as sex education, another thing that schools should do regardless of whether the parents think it's OK or not.

Schools don't make medical decisions, doctors do.

edit 2:

MEDICAL transition.

[all2]

This [0] that might interest you, then, if you think schools aren't involved in transitioning children.

Relevant quote:

===

    Even though the policy states that “the goal in all cases is to strive for consensus between parents/guardians and student as to the application of this policy,” it adds that the decision to participate in the “gender transition plan” belongs to the student, and “does not require additional parent/guardian consent”—unless parental/guardian rights under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), or other applicable law, would be implicated.

===

[0] https://www.ntd.com/parents-and-legal-guardians-excluded-fro...

[a_shovel]

The primary source cited in the article seems to have been wiped and replaced with "under review", but based on the article it seems it was primarily that if a trans kid is out at school, staff shouldn't assume they're out at home and so they should default to using the kid's legal name when communicating with parents. This seems like a good policy; if someone doesn't want to come out to their parents, it may be because they fear being beaten or thrown out of their home if they do.

"Schools transitioning children" is not a coherent phrase. "Transition" in the gender sense is not a transitive verb; transition is not something done to someone by others, is something that person does themselves.

[ptero]

Is this sarcasm? There is what, to me and many other parents, amounts to heavy advertising of medical transition in many classrooms.