The costs of trans visibility

Then I suggest we stop with "gender affirming care" as that is equally trying to evoke a certain connotation.

I am now prepared for you to tell me that's different, thus showcasing one of rickroll's points.

Yeah, I am playing a nine.

I see what you did their.

That's the standard, medically accepted term. It's not at all loaded language on par with calling a normal medical procedure a "mutilation."

From what has been discussed here, gender affirming care can be broken down into the following categories:

1. Social transition/support therapy
2. Puberty blockers
3. Hormone treatment
4. Surgical care.

I assume from his posts that Luciom is against the govt, his insurer and insurance companies in general paying for 2,3, and 4, but he can speak for himself. Why he thinks these treatments should be treated differently than other procedures deemed medically necessary by the medical professions has yet to be explained.

I don't think people would have issues calling gender affirming surgery 'genital mutilation' if the medical term were genital mutilation instead of gender affirming surgery

Though I am still quite fond of the word ******ed and we can't really say that in public anymore

If liposuction is a medically acknowledged cure for obesity and they fall within the guidelines to qualify for receiving taxpayer assistance then sure.

No, not for the cosmetic surgery

so your answer is that you would defer to "experts" opinion.

I very very strongly disagree.

I think that the people directly earning money from a political decision are the last people in the country you should ask about the validity of that political decision.

you don't ask farmers about how much they need government help do you?

Who are these expert medical folks ? Psychiatrists and Psychiatrists?

Whatever problem you might have, they've got a chemical for you.

You don't think that the people that provide this care have an interest in making it sound as positive as possible?

no doctors, even if they collectively failed as much as possible, beyond any reasonable expectation, proving most of them are completely devoid of any moral, with COVID, still get a free pass about self interest as a lobby for some reason.

even if, I repeat, they proved beyond reasonable doubt to be among the worst lobbies in western society by a large margin.

we used to hate lawyers in the 80s, we should really change the target today toward the real bad guys

Pretty sure we do exactly that with Agriculture subsidies

God forbid.

I don't see any compelling reason why we shouldn't use the standard terminology that practicing medical professionals use. I"m not sure why it makes you defensive.

Well I dunno if you've noticed but Doctors are now evil according to some of the posters in this thread.

It must be exhausting constantly convincing ones self that experts are all evil morons endlessly lying to the public about anything and everything.

because they just invented it and we have no duty to defer to their recent inventions as if they were the truth.

and also because doctors in other first world countries profoundly disagree with some or many of the ideas that are currently the norm in american medical practice wrt "gender care", meaning it is not something scientifical (otherwise all physicians everywhere will be on board) rather a very political topic

doctors in the USA are evil since they lobbied against other doctors immigrations, thus creating the conditions (among other things) for the highest medical care costs worldwide, higher than in places with higher per Capita GDP.

that a Canadian (or British or Irish or German or Italian and so on) certified doctor can't come to the USA and practice immediately no question asked Is a disgrace caused entirely by the medical lobby, which is objectively evil b doing that.

After you ascertain a group is deeply evil and acts strongly against the interest of society, for it's own self interest, then the burden of proof moves to the other side.

Given their proven, deep, disgusting evil (wrt lobbying against immigration of Doctors from other countries), everything they do as a group has to be seen as inherently tainted by financial interests and they lost the benefit of doubt in all matters.

So whose opinion do you defer to instead, the unwashed masses or the politicians?

how does it work, what's the proper "sciebtifical" practice if people who dedicated their entire life about a subject deeply disagree with each other.

more generally, what's science everytime there is a deep disagreement among scientists?

I try to remove as many things as possible from collective violent decision making, like a lot of them, like most of them, and still defer to the masses to the very few things we can't remove from collective decision making, as the lesser evil.

but 90-95% of things shouldn't be collectively decided by anyone, just let every adult do the **** he wants , without any collective money being involved

This is a pretty strange rant about the federal govt as it is actually the states that individually license doctor to practice medicine within their borders. So the restrictions against foreign doctors occurs at the state, not federal level. Which is exactly what you were rallying for with regards to the EPA and FDA in another thread.

and it's the doctors in every single state lobbying for that, so which part of "they act against societal interest for their financial interest so they should never be trusted at all in any topic where they gain" is false?

you should read that article i shared regarding the media's influence on lobotomies, it's very eye opening

or this

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23040706...