The costs of trans visibility

There is to some extremists, but you're the one with the slippery slope towards totalitarianism. It's you who is saying that if it's ok for the government to make some decisions for people, it's ok for government to make all decisions for people.

What should the standard be for it to be necessary for the government to remove parental rights? Well, for an extremist libertarian it might be never and that children are the property of their parents, but for an ordinary libertarian it should be more than Luciom thinks it's a bad thing. It should also be more than, this is a controversial thing that some people think is fine and some people think is bad. It should have to be a compelling thing where some vast majority of people think it's a wrong thing. Murder is illegal. It's not controversial. No libertarian in a Western democracy should be thinking the government should be banning abortion. That would be crazy. Cutting off 2 year old's penis because they say they are trans would be nuts too, but opinions are mixed on puberty blockers for adolescents. If the kids, parents and doctors all agree on that - the government should stay out of it.

A pretty big majority think minors should not recieve hormones or get chopped.

I know that there is no objective way to standarsize this: kind of an I know it when I see it thing. But those in favor of such things seem to be swept up in a crazy ideology, or perhaps are afraid to speak the truth. Something like people who believe in prayer over medicine.

Also, the doctor in question is usually a psychiatrist, no? GAC runs about $250k in the US. Libertarian or not, it doesn't seem reasonable to expect a 14 year old to make a good decision when a professional psychiatrist gets a new Ferrari if he can influence that decision to one side.

Even if the shrink tries to be objective, both his income and status/cache are heavily invested in one outcome and not many people are objective in that spot.

This seems like the epitome of a case where even Libertarian minded people should favor regulation.

No person is property in libertarianism

No person's genitals is the property of the government in libertarianism.

In libertarianism, the use of force to prevent voluntary, victimless activity is to be prohibited, as I understand libertarianism.

To say that a 9 year old can't form a voluntary viewpoint, due to immaturity, OK, but why a 20 year old and not a 16 year old? Maybe, these should be a case-by-case basis. It's on medical associations to form ethics codes as to how issues of gender are handled for licensing purposes in libertarianism. Not on the government to appeal to the whim of the loudest, either way.

FWIW, I sympathize with libertarianism, voluntaryism, left-wing anarchism to many degrees, but I'm neither, as I do believe that government can have the right to exist and that the social safety net is an act of security not aggression.

I don't know where people think these so called "parental rights" are enshrined. Certainly not in the constitution, where it is clear that one person should not be considered the property of another. Children are often in need of protection, and it shouldn't come from just one person who isn't required to have any qualifications. Remember "it takes a village"?

Ehm in libertarianism there are no professional licenses, and associations don't have any power on others.

Minor protection is one of the short list items of things the government must do.

Age of consent debate has no clear answer but once society decides, that's the age of consent.

What's clear about age of consent though is that it needs to be consistent. There can certainly be no universe where you aren't allowed to drink but you are allowed to self sterilize yourself with drugs, that's some sort of really psychopathic incoherence

I would clearly never give pediatricians and psychiatrists any power over anything especially given how radically they skew left

But in general the idea of "if the doctor thinks it is ok then he can do it to a minor" is absurd.

Again, what about the Somali doctor who is fine with infibulations?

By radically skew left you mean register as democrats. Loool, you are such a great caricature.

Not my first language but radically skew left means they skew left a lot , not that they skew radical left.

It's over 70% democrats vs 33% of surgeons (in 2016), that's a really radical (significant, huge, extreme) skew.

Probably predicated on sex to begin with with surgeons being male much more than psychiatrists iirc

So because they skew left a lot you would never give them power over anything. Yet the higher paying specialists who may be
"recommending procedures for the money" are skew right a lot and should be given all the power.

only about half of voting americans register for a party - the very act of having registered for a part is a strong signifier you care more than the average person about politics

but of course ignore that and attack the degree to which he stated it (which i agree is lol but we all clearly understood what he meant as he literally uses "radical left" to describe anyone who isn't himself)

Blacks radically skew lefts means they vote left much more than they vote right, it doesn't mean they are on average radical leftists.

Same for paediatricians and other demographic groups.

I don't understand why saying a group radically skews X is being read as the group being radical X

radically
/ˈradɪkli/
adverb
in a thorough or fundamental way; completely.

No, physicians shouldn't be given any power to be clear as i stated many times.

But yes if you desperatly need to give power over the lives of others to some non elected group (which, mind, you should simply never do full stop) it's better if you give it to people who skew closer to my preferences lol, as it would be for you reversed.

Their employer might be financially interested in the big money from donors

/

These financiers do not simply write checks. Their money almost always comes with conditions. Jennifer Pritzker, for example, gave millions to the University of Minnesota for the creation of a Program of Human Sexuality. The Pritzker Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Health at Lurie’s Children Hospital, which includes research for gender non-conforming children, got over $20 million in Pritzker gifts. The University of Chicago’s Pritzker School of Medicine was one of the first in the nation to offer a complete series of gender affirming courses. At Canada’s University of Victoria, Pritzker endowed the first ever chair in transgender studies. The University of Toronto got $20 million to create a center for Sexual Diversity Studies. Pritzker wrote a $25 million check to the University of California at San Francisco, and it opened a children’s psychiatric unit that specialized in LGBT care. Besides underwriting major institutional endeavors that further the transgender ideology, Pritzker gives millions in research grants to influential physicians, from Northwestern University’s chief of pediatrics, Cleveland Clinic’s Pritzker Foundation Chair for Functional Medicine, and Baylor University’s Endocrinology chief. When Pritzker gave $25 million to a military academy in Vermont, a faculty member told me it felt as if the directive was to develop a program to “make military transgerderism a reality.”

/

But yes i agree companies making hormones take the bulk of the financial gain that comes from an increased medicalization of trans-ness (which is why Texas AG tried to sue Endo and Abbvie for misleading advertisement and other practices targeting "trans teens", not sure how it went or if it even reached court though)

this is a bad faith strawman argument

while it may be directionally right that a psychiatrist doesn't need trans in order to make a living

to imply that there's no economic incentives whatsoever is patently absurd

just look at where the industry is going as a whole via large online companies and this is what they pay

those are not fu money salaries - while what you described may be true for the majority of credentialed psychiatrists, there are certainly plenty who are not in a great financial situation and if they were in a position to leave their 80k a year job at betterhelp and make several multiples more than that working in a new and expanding field would probably strongly consider it

for example, as seen from the 99% demonstrations, there are many people who view those working in wallstreet as evil and net negatives on our society and economy

yet if you were to poll those wallstreet people you'd find that very few (if any) of them are ideologically or pathologically motivated to working on wallstreet, they just see it as doing a well compensated job - the very people who were fundamental pieces in driving the 2008 economic crisis were not doing it out of malice nor ideological concerns, they were just working and doing what they thought was the best thing to do

and if psychiatrists made minimum wage, we'd see the amount of them absolutely plummet

so it's just absurd for you to paint psychiatrists as holier than thou and infallible because they all have fu money and can do whatever they please - which is just an insulting and presumptuous argument made in bad faith strictly because you frankly do not respect anyone in the thread and think you can just dictate nonsense like that from up on high as if we were your children

by rickroll P

those are not fu money salaries - while what you described may be true for the majority of credentialed psychiatrists, there are certainly plenty who are not in a great financial situation and if they were in a position to leave their 80k a year job at betterhelp and make several multiples more than that working in a new and expanding field would probably strongly consider it

None of the jobs in that image are for psychiatrists. There's no psychiatrist in the United States making only $80,000 a year unless they are working one day per week.

That's not really what I said, though, is it?

This whole but libertarianism tangent is ridiculous. Sure there's a solid debate on consent etc near the current boundaries. Drinking age, voting age, etc But to be so oblivious as to raise up a point about fascism, government control, etc when talking about 14 year olds genital mutilation, sterilization (etc) it's just bonkers. Kids have always been and will always need to be protected. Imagine dropping your kid off at the mall and they come home with a 30 year contract some sleeze bag duped them in to. But aren't some of you libertarians? lol

Unfortunately I don't have the link at this very moment but I watched a video of an actual conference held by a hospital in the states where they talk about how profitable it is to go down this road, the money, lifetime patient etc. Make no mistake, they are very aware of how profitable this is for them. If you don't think doctors can easily be corrupted then look no further than pain pills, pain pill clinics, etc. Basically a blueprint of how easily profits can steamroll actual patient care

Another thing related to what ganstaman said though, is that if we buy the "physicians are already full in demand anyway" tangent, which has a decent basis of reality behind it, this means that the medicalization of trans-ness is *reducing real healthcare for real patients elsewhere*.

Everytime society wastes physicians times dealing with healthy trans people, someone else with an actual health problem is left without medical access, definitionally, IF physicians are all booked anyway as gangasta said of psychiatrists because demand is high enough anyway.

So in an actual literal sense under those lines of thought, the medicalization of trans-ness is killing or otherwise deteriorating the health of other people, by removing access to scarce healthcare

Because that's the way English works. When talking about politics "radical" has meaning that people understand. You can't just go throwing it out there and claim you meant something other than what most would think. It is being either needlessly provocative or exceptionally naive. If it's the former, stop. If it's the latter, learn. Doubling down on being right is a bad look.

I have learnt english mostly by reading and then checking the dictionary, and what i had learnt was that radical (adjective) had very different meaning than radically (adverbe), and a dictionary check confirmed that.

I just meant that they dramatically (synonim of radically) skew left, a supermajority of pediatricians are democrats (among those who choose one of the 2 parties). I didn't think it was controversial at all to use "radically skew" nor that it was "provocative".

I do use radical left often to define the left of the left, but this wasn't such a case.

Court rules Ontario health plan must pay for gender-affirming surgery in Texas

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/a....

There's that term "gender-affirming care". That's evidence free ideology. Ideology that they have made it difficult to argue without breaking the law/regulations in Canada. Bill C-16 requires you to use someone elses preferred regardless of your own beliefs. Regulations make "gender-affirming care" the standard practice. Meaning, not affirming someone's subjective gender identity is not on the table. Including 14 year olds. This is why a 14 year old can walk in to a dr's office and declare they want to transition after watching some youtube videos and be handed a prescription without the parents knowledge. They literally are trying to make it illegal to not buy in to or participate gender ideology (with no evidence btw). Control your speech legally. Transition a kid behind the parents back at school or at a walk-in clinic. Oh but the fascism of wanting people to be able to speak freely and protect children lol. Don't do drugs kids. and always wear a helmet

Did this tweeter forget about inclusivity? It's basically one 3rd of the 3 greatest principles ever developed. And people want to regulate exclusion here? Are they fascist?

Did these people on the road to fascism really just break another one of the 3 sacred commandments? You wanna exclude they/them? ok axis

Obiwan, according to experts in this thread it never happened, if it happened it was only in swimming, if it happened elsewhere it's actually a good thing, and men don't have a biological advantage in sports anyway and that's what (their) science says, and if you disagree that's a crime.

you are correct, my apologies, i assumed the "licensed" ones were psychiatrists and the rest were psychologists (and yes I've dated a psychiatrist, I know all to painfully about the vast divide between the two and how calling a psychiatrist a psychologist is a grave insult to many of them - my genuine apologies for making that mistake i assumed therapist to be a generic term encompassing both fields but I guess its just another word for psychologist)

that's still exactly what you said though, that they have zero economic incentives - and while certainly less true than how I painted it as I agree that none are making 80k a year (i was frankly surprised myself at how low those salaries were and that should have been more of a red flag to me to hold up and pause as I was expecting the call center ones to still be clearing low 6 figures) - it's still a bad faith argument IMO

you had wallstreet people who were going to make 700k a year but instead opted to make 800k a year exploiting a loophole by packaging bad debt until it got labeled as good debt - they genuinely didn't understand what was wrong with what they were doing nor what it would eventually do to the economy because if they did - they wouldn't have gutted themselves by selling credit default swaps on it to men like Michael Burry

Burry (who like you is also a doctor) did not go reporting his findings - he instead went out and bought as many credit default swaps as he could and even did it in a way so that he still profits if they collapsed

and notably he never informed the SEC about what he saw coming, it's widely implied that he did but was ignored but it never happened

so you have two parties here doing devastating and destructive work to the economy

both sides are already incredibly wealthy

both sides are going to make lots of money no matter what they do (Scion was returning incredible profits before it even got involved in credit default swaps)

neither side was doing it for ideological reasons, they were both just doing their jobs, one side just found a new revenue stream by repackaging mortgages, the other side realized the danger of this, that it would literally cause financial institutions to collapse and instead of informing the SEC they instead decided to gut them of cash on their way down into collapse

both did incredibly harmful work and neither saw it as anything other than just another day at the office

burry is even a cultish hero in our culture now despite that instead of calling the fire department he showed up and poured gasoline on the fire

tl:dr - i apologize for mistakingly believing licensed therapist was a standing for psychiatrist but I still disagree strongly with your notion that psychiatrists can do no harm and don't have any economic incentives

if you're called into jury duty and your boss in on trial, do you not still recuse yourself because of the economic and personal interests you have with the defendant or can you simply say

and also, gender dysphoria are not monopolized by psychiatrists, even the mayo clinic's lead on this is a psychologist not a psychiatrist

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-cond...