This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I regularly see claims like that with no evidence that anyone actually believes that. The closest I've seen is arguments over whether puberty blockers are appropriate for trans teenagers (and the pro-trans people like to point out that no one thinks puberty blockers are inappropriate for cis teenagers when medically indicated). I'm not sure exactly what age children are normally allowed to make medical decisions without parental approval, I'd assume 16? But it probably varies by jurisdiction. And it isn't a trans-healthcare-specific thing.
Puberty blockers are in fact considered inappropriate for cis teenagers in all use cases that I'm aware of -- they are normally given to kids experiencing puberty many years before they come teenagers, to delay it until a more age-appropriate time.
The use-case for trans teenagers seems to be mainly "park 'em on blockers until they are old enough to consent to hormones/surgery"; this seems quite different, most obviously in that the patients never do experience puberty.
More options
Context Copy link
In Washington state a child can access certain "sensitive" health care services starting at age 13 without their parents being in the loop. These are services related to reproductive health, sexually transmitted diseases, substance use disorder, gender dysphoria, gender affirming care, domestic violence, and mental health.
So, your kid can be addicted to heroin, have been beaten and raped by their older brother and have contracted HIV, be suicidal about the whole mess, and you have no right to even be consulted about it, or even know about it.
Oh, and they can also surprise you when they show up with bandages where their breasts used to be.
More options
Context Copy link
That seems to be around the general age, yes. But fear not, WPATH is out there fighting for the rights of 14 year olds to start on hormones!
Look, my position on this is: you're 18, you want to chop your breasts off because you're mentally ill, I don't like it but you're a legal adult. Go ahead, even if a few years down the line you will then be suing the doctors who did the surgery you are now demanding:
You're 14-16, you're too damn young to know and evaluate the long-term effects of this stuff. Your parents are not horrible monsters who want to mistreat you, they are genuinely trying to do what they believe is good for you by not giving permission.
Even this requires precision because it may concede more than we otherwise do, a sign that the Overton window has been shifted.
My framing would be: if you wish to cut off your own breasts you are free to attempt it and take the attendant risks. But you are not entitled to help from licensed medical professionals to do this, anymore than someone who has alien limb syndrome gets to have that procedure or any teenager with body dysmorphia but wants to get jacked instead should get on demand access to test.
Because, before this started, those things were unquestioned as being unacceptable.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Well, if no one actually believes this, can you go to whatever progressive hangout you have, and say "I believe parents should have the right to prevent their children from getting blockers, hormones, or trans-surgeries, until whatever age people are allowed to make their own medical decisions", and tell me how it goes?
Sure, and if you express the sentiment that you don't want your kid to take puberty blockers, you will be called every name in the book, and it will be implied that you want to kill trans children. That's not a defensive posture.
And it's not just blockers. Minors are also getting surgeries.
That argument does not make sense, when the validity of the medical indication is precisely the thing in question.
Exactly. "Rights of parents" are red herring - no one except of few ultra weirdos, least of all the left, respects decision of parents to deny their children medical care necessary to save their life and health.
Try "in this house we believe in Bible and prayer, not surgery and blood transfusion", you will not get too far anywhere. Many such legal cases.
Is "trans health care" really necessary to save life and health? This is the question what is it all about.
Are you familiar with Jehovah's Witnesses? They refuse blood transfusions, and have won every court case that has challenged that practice.
Not every case clearly, when dealing with kids:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/08/judge-rules-jehovahs-witness-boy-blood-transfusion
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/jehovahs-witness-blood-transfusion-1.4299992
"This principle is not absolute, as is the case when a JW parent refuses blood for their minor child. While the U.S. Constitution protects the freedom to practice religion, courts have not interpreted that freedom to include the right to refuse lifesaving treatment for a child on the basis of that religion (11). Instead, courts confronted with the issue have upheld a hospital’s ability to provide blood even against a parent’s wishes (11). Some states even have specific laws that authorize a court to order treatment under certain circumstances, though such laws are not required since a court can make an independent determination based on the state’s inherent interest in protecting the child (11,12,13)."
"In addition, 17 of the states and territories that have exemptions specify in their statutes that, in some cases, a court can order treatment for children, regardless of the parent’s religious wishes. Colorado’s law states: “The religious rights of the parent shall not limit the access of a child to medical care in a life-threatening situation.” Florida, similarly, states: “This exception does not preclude a court from ordering medical services or other treatment to be provided when the health of the child so requires.”
First two are UK and Canada, last two are the US.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
In actuality the question seems to be about who has the power to determine what "necessary to save life and health" really means, by imposing a conclusion on the matter on the entire populace and quelching dissent.
That is, much like certain other important questions of our time, they claim 'the science is settled' and then use this as a basis to impose the outcome they wanted anyway because who can argue with science?
There seems to be no desire to engage with the question you brought up because that would imply being willing to meet the opposition on somewhat equal footing.
More options
Context Copy link
To be fair, I'm perfectly willing to sacrifice as many progressive and Jehovah's Witness' kids as it takes, to secure my right to prevent gender experiments on my kids.
More seriously, I think those are parallel debates. There might be parental rights ti decide this stuff (why do parents get to veto tattoos or piercings otherwise?), and it may or may not be true that trans-medicine is life saving.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link