Discussion»Statements»Rosie's Corner» "South Dakota House passes bill restricting medical treatments for transgender youth". Let me take a SWAG. South Dakota is a DEEP RED STATE?
I'm still undecided about allowing youth such medical services. After all, we don't (generally) allow them cosmetic surgery - because their bodies and minds are not fully developed, yet. So how can we claim their minds are developed enough for gender-change treatments?
And now I hear California is trying to pass legislation that juveniles are up to 20 years old (for criminal proceedings)? Allegedly based on the reasoning that they can't legally drink or smoke until 21, and their brains are still developing. If that's the case, I hope California isn't allowing those "juveniles" to vote under the new law (if it passes). After all, if you're too "undeveloped" to understand it's not okay to commit a crime - then you're also too "undeveloped" to vote.
Like so many things these days Walt "it's complicated". My understanding of those in the LGBTQ community is that they KNOW early on they are different. I doubt that it is a developmental stage they are going through which will pass. I have never personally experienced it but I imagine it would be very painful to feel as if you were female inside but your outside didn't show it. You'd be forced to play a role not because it was your choice but because it was forced on you. Of medical doctors would know more about that than I. In any case if it were just youngsters needing medical attention you'd be OK with that? But the LGBTQ throws shade on it? That doesn't sit too well with me but I'm not the judge. Thank you for your thoughtful reply and Happy Thursday to you! I'm going to ask. Maybe someone out there knows! :)
Admittedly, I don't understand the whole transgender brain thing.
However, I do personally know people who went through a phase claiming they identified as another gender for various reasons ... but later identified as their birth gender. Some did it to get attention. Some did it because they didn't identify with their stereotype gender peers, at that time in their life and believed that meant they were other-gendered.
So yes, to me it is the same as kids wanting cosmetic surgery. We don't allow that unless it is a medical necessity. EG: Burn victim. So IMO, we shouldn't allow a gender operation on minors unless they have been evaluated by a mental health professional.
I would absolutely support that "unless" Walt. In any case something that irreversible and big ought not be undertaken whimsically. Thank you for your reply. In any case I am so thankful I never identified as anything but female. Never wondered what it's like to be a guy. I do think guys have it tougher. They have to be strong confident sensitive kind thoughtful intelligent macho but not too much. It would drive me bonkers. :)
This post was edited by RosieG at January 30, 2020 11:30 AM MST
I live in South Dakota so I can answer this from my own point-of-view. South Dakota is basically one-party rule in the state government. Our governor has been a Republican since 1 January 1979 so right now we're on our seventh Republican governor. The upper house is 85.7% Republican and the lower house is 84.3% Republican so definitely a red state.
The local news this morning said the governor doesn't know if she'll sign it because she's in-between a rock and a hard place. She's worried about chasing business out of the state but she also wants to please the hard-right conservative Christian crowd and so far she's been doing a very good job of that by rubber stamping things that only hard-right Christians care about. All of the people I'm around (except for my mom) are pretty much in the center of the political spectrum and they're all saying state government that's this far to the right is starting to get old really fast.
The culprit who's been introducing this stuff is my own district's representative and I remember voting for the other guy in 2018 for this reason. He's the same guy who introduced a "bathroom bill" in 2016 but our last governor ruled closer to the middle of the political spectrum so he vetoed it. Really now, someone who had a sex change operation and looks like a member of the sex opposite of which they were born and nobody can tell the difference should be required to use the other bathroom?
The biggest problem with this kind of legislation is its unintended consequences, like what about intersexed people? A woman has two X chromosomes and a man has one X chromosome and one Y chromosome but what if someone has XXY chromosomes (about 0.001% of the population). If they and their parents want treatment which would probably improve their lives then why shouldn't they be allowed to have it just because of some short-sighted politicians?
Walt O'Reagun 