Whats up with this article? Throughout it calls it a grand jury subpoena, it even says it's the first known instance of the Justice Department using a grand jury to obtain information for a criminal probe... Then at the end of the article it says the subpoenas were administrative in nature and were not obtained by going before a grand jury.
128
lord-deathquake13 hr ago
+55
The precious paragraph describes 20 subpoenas from last July. Those were the administrative subpeonas.
This new one is criminal and came from a grand jury in Texas. That means that ignoring or otherwise not complying with it may include criminal repercussions. It is a huge escalation.
55
heavyPacket9 hr ago
+25
How does Texas have authority to issue subpoenas to entities in other states? How is that even enforceable?
25
lord-deathquake9 hr ago
+20
Oh it's all bullshit. But it isn't Tx issuing anything. It is the federal gov just using Tx as a base to issue from because of biased judiciary and populace.
20
theresa_richter7 hr ago
+13
Except, of course, that there's no clear link between the case and Texas, which means it needed to be filed in the district the hospital is located in. That's so basic that I can't see the appeals court failing to take turns bonking this judge on the head with their gavels.
13
Malaix8 hr ago
+14
Texas always thinks it has a right to dictate what happens in other states. It literally tried to violate the US constitution in 2020 to control PA's election process via lawsuit.
They constantly try to legally invade other states.
14
Mayor__Defacto13 hr ago
+8
I’m sure they’ll try to have it quashed
8
move_machine15 hr ago
+28
Good old ChatGPT wrote the article based on a summary, that's why.
28
whynotjoin17 hr ago
+265
Some blatant forum shopping sending subpoenas from TX to a NY medical provider (especially given this means they are supposedly conducting a criminal investigation).
But it will be an interesting test of NY's shield law.
265
theresa_richter12 hr ago
+22
I looked up the original filing from the US Attorney, and there is no nexus connecting this to Texas, which means that this is a blatant violation and will get thrown out on appeal, as the court has no jurisdiction and the US must file in the correct venue, which is the federal district court where compliance is being requested. The fact that the judge issued the subpoena on the day the request was filed without giving the hospital any opportunity to respond will not weigh in the judge's favor, either.
Republicans have blatantly rigged the court system, but the majority of non-SCOTUS judges, even conservative judges, still expect the rules to be followed.
22
Drachen106514 hr ago
+41
Didn't NY already shut down an investigation from out of state over birth control and abortion pills?
Or was that another state?
41
Za_Lords_Guard14 hr ago
+35
I think that one was Washington State over abortion access for a Texas resident.
Or that was one. There have been several. Ken Paxton seems to think he personally owns every uterus in the state.
35
Generic-Name-473213 hr ago
+9
Yeah. NY specifically passed abortion shield laws.
9
GEARHEADGus13 hr ago
+8
What happens if that doc is protected under the shield laws and travels to Texas at some point for a vacation or to visit family?
8
214ObstructedReverie8 hr ago
+4
Presumably such a doctor would be smarter than that.
4
drgngd13 hr ago
-1
It's a federal subpoena, and not state. Not sure how it works with the NYC law.
-1
mlorusso417 hr ago
+288
One of the hidden outcomes of the DoJ constantly failing to get grand jury indictments for the weakest politically motivated witch hunts is maga thinking that they’re some impossible hurdle to clear. So when they do get the indictment or subpoena it must mean a crime actually occurred.
Instead of what is actually happening, which is anyone can indict a gal sandwich, so all these failed indictments are even more embarrassing
288
Flash_ina_pan16 hr ago
+77
I can't see how this one isn't going to be challenged on venue. The hospital should definitely tell the court to pound sand.
77
JayTheWolfDragon16 hr ago
+48
“Those subpoenas were administrative in nature and were not obtained by going before a grand jury.”
At least there’s that
48
hypercube423425 hr ago
+1
Those were the bullshit from a few months ago, this new one was from a (kangaroo court in another state) grand jury
1
IOl0I0lO15 hr ago
+16
I don’t think MAGA has ever cared about proof of guilt.
16
Lucky-Earther14 hr ago
+5
> which is anyone can indict a gal sandwich
What a fun autocorrect
5
TheParadoxigm17 hr ago
+1209
Woo, collecting information on minors for a problem that doesnt exist! Yay!
1209
Rubthebuddhas17 hr ago
+437
To be accurate the one thing this administration has consistently cared about is minors and their sexuality.
437
Saneless16 hr ago
+222
Republicans think about children's genitals wayyyyy too much
222
Due-Zucchini-852015 hr ago
+61
queer kids and teens thrown out of homes for prejudice have been easy prey for human traffickers for years in the US
61
underboobfunk15 hr ago
+26
Not good enough! This regime wants to steal children from supportive parents, forcibly “reprogram” the children and prosecute their parents.
26
Saneless15 hr ago
+11
Oh yeah. The parents choose the cult over the children for sure
11
IamHydrogenMike17 hr ago
+17
One thing they consistently care about is making people scared about things that are easily targeted...
17
Spec_Tater16 hr ago
+13
I would say that joke was low hanging fruit, but uh….
13
attrition014 hr ago
+5
Where's the joke
5
artbystorms15 hr ago
+8
If republicans cared as much about working Americans as they did about the genitals of minors they might actually be a functioning political party.
8
Taellosse14 hr ago
+3
But they do. Exactly as much. That's kind of the problem. Because they want to abuse both until anything resembling a sustainably healthy life going forward is impossible.
3
Bart_Yellowbeard17 hr ago
+43
Oh no, there is a problem that actually exists, and the Department of Injustice is the entity perpetrating the attack on American freedom.
43
Available_Usual_973116 hr ago
+57
There's a problem, as far as conservatives are concerned:
Not enough transgender youth are committing suicide and removing themself from the discussion.
Because, for anyone too young or not plugged in enough, THAT was why we had all these transgender-kids conversations in the first place. Too many high schoolers committing suicide over gender dysmorphia.
57
[deleted]15 hr ago
-32
[removed]
-32
CumOnEileen6942014 hr ago
+16
From the most recent Trevor project LGBT youth survey.
> 36% of LGBTQ+ young people seriously considered attempting suicide in the past year, including 40% of transgender and nonbinary young people
> Transgender and nonbinary young people who were unable to access the hormones they wanted were nearly twice as likely to attempt suicide than those who could.
Idk about you, but that’s pretty damming evidence right there.
https://www.thetrevorproject.org/survey-2025/
16
harkuponthegay10 hr ago
Self reported survey data it not the highest quality evidence, and Trevor Project is not an unbiased research entity, and again this does not prove causality because there are other things going on in their lives at the same time that are related to their access to hormones.
In order to be getting hormones you pretty much have to have parents or adults in the picture who are supportive of and acknowledge your gender identity to begin with. Those who can't get hormones but want them are more likely being impeded by their home life more so than the state. They are less likely to have accepting and supportive families that love them rather than trying to discipline the trans out of them.
That makes a huge difference in terms of your mental state and the hope you have for a better future, it improves your ability to cope and navigate what is a difficult period for all LGBT youth, as the survey shows for both trans and cis kids. We don't know if the reason the kids who can get hormones seem to be doing better is purely because they are on hormones because the groups are not random.
It could feasibly be the case that those kids are doing better simply because they are not living in shitty anti-trans households with awful parents feeling unloved or like they can't talk about what they are feeling inside.
If you took all the kids who are not getting hormones out of their shitty homes and gave them supportive and loving families, but still did not give them hormones they would almost certainly still fare better. We can't tell based on that survey data alone what is actually driving the reduction. Which is why I am saying we don't have the definitive proof of this as a cause and effect relationship.Though I also think it should be up to a doctor and patient to decide, not the government. Gender dyphoria in kids is tricky, and not every kid who experiences gender dysphoria is trans, its a spectrum. Some overcome it through therapy and adjust as the grow, for some it can resolve during puberty on its own, and for some it just gets worse—those are the kids that really need hormone treatment but its not easy to identify that group from the others. Its tough and i don't envy the parents and doctors who want the best for the kids and hold the power to decide.
0
TechieInTheTrees15 hr ago
+61
Absolutely incorrect. The data supporting gender affirming care is incredibly strong, and every major medical organization in the US has made explicit policy statements that gender affirming healthcare is lifesaving and medically necessary.
We absolutely do need more data and higher quality studies, which is why it's particularly telling that governments are shutting down that research.
61
[deleted]15 hr ago
-31
[removed]
-31
TechieInTheTrees15 hr ago
+37
That is untrue. The APA and AMA have not walked back any of those policy statements. They reaffirmed that they do not approve of gender affirming surgery in trans youth and have never supported it, their policies remain unchanged.
Here are the official statements
Here's the APA: [https://www.apa.org/about/policy/transgender-nonbinary-inclusive-care.pdf](https://www.apa.org/about/policy/transgender-nonbinary-inclusive-care.pdf)
The AMA: [https://www.ama-assn.org/public-health/population-health/advocating-lgbtq-community](https://www.ama-assn.org/public-health/population-health/advocating-lgbtq-community)
The American Academy of Pediatrics: [https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/142/4/e20182162/37381/Ensuring-Comprehensive-Care-and-Support-for](https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/142/4/e20182162/37381/Ensuring-Comprehensive-Care-and-Support-for)
37
DeterminedThrowaway15 hr ago
+23
How infuriating that political interference in gender affirming care gets to be used as an example by bigots to justify further interfering in gender affirming care.
23
move_machine14 hr ago
+19
What's really disgusting is how giddy being this disingenuous makes them.
*This* is what animates them. And that's disgusting when doing good could be what animates them instead. It's their choice to look like pigs happily rolling in shit.
19
CaryHepSouth15 hr ago
-36
> The data supporting gender affirming care is incredibly strong
This is untrue, as many nations are now walking back from this idea when it comes to minors, including the UK, USA, Sweden, Finland, Norway, France, Denmark, and Italy.
-36
TechieInTheTrees15 hr ago
+42
Many nations *politicians* are imposing restrictions *unilaterally* on trans youth healthcare. Doctors organizations do not support these policies. In the case of the US every major medical organization has explicitly stated that they support trans youth healthcare.
Here's the APA: [https://www.apa.org/about/policy/transgender-nonbinary-inclusive-care.pdf](https://www.apa.org/about/policy/transgender-nonbinary-inclusive-care.pdf)
The AMA: [https://www.ama-assn.org/public-health/population-health/advocating-lgbtq-community](https://www.ama-assn.org/public-health/population-health/advocating-lgbtq-community)
The American Academy of Pediatrics: [https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/142/4/e20182162/37381/Ensuring-Comprehensive-Care-and-Support-for](https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/142/4/e20182162/37381/Ensuring-Comprehensive-Care-and-Support-for)
42
DeterminedThrowaway15 hr ago
+28
>there is not actually very robust evidence as to whether transitioning actually reduces youth suicide
If you understand anything about how being trans works which we do have evidence for, you'd understand why this is the case. It's not actually some mystery, it just benefits people who are against anyone being trans to pretend we know less than we do
28
[deleted]15 hr ago
-18
[removed]
-18
DeterminedThrowaway15 hr ago
+25
Well think about what you're actually saying here. It boils down to "yeah they'll definitely suffer massively, but maybe they won't actually commit suicide". That doesn't sound like a spectacular argument to me.
25
bernietheweasel17 hr ago
+26
Almost as well meaning as the collection of the contact details of Jewish students and staff at Penn
26
Malaix8 hr ago
+2
After all this I am fine with Republicans constantly getting their info investigated and leaked. Its what they want for others so its what they deserve.
Conservatives have zero right to privacy as far as I am concerned. Every medical hiccup Trump voters have had in their life should be plastered on god damn billboards and completely fair game for any person, employer, or insurance company to weaponize against them.
2
DrDFox16 hr ago
+178
This should make everyone angry. The government has no right to your medical information nor should they be dictating what you do to your body.
178
move_machine15 hr ago
+48
Part of *Dobbs* overturn of *Roe* means that the right to medical privacy from the government set in *Roe* is no longer case law precedent.
It should horrify everybody.
48
JustHereForCookies1713 hr ago
+6
Exactly. Roe was about a person's right to privacy protecting access to abortion. Overturning it didn't just outlaw abortion, it eroded medical privacy for everyone.
6
narkybark11 hr ago
+3
Unfortunately, this is about 162nd on my list of things that should make everyone angry. I'm going to have to make a tier list.
3
black_metronome16 hr ago
+42
Tell them to f*** off.
42
Alexu696917 hr ago
+144
Ah, just another excuse for Republicans to look into children's pants.
144
[deleted]16 hr ago
-181
[removed]
-181
DJHalfCourtViolation16 hr ago
+49
A rejection of treatment equal to that of knee replacement
Even then it’s something the medical community should discuss not something that a pedophile a drunk and a dude who’s idea of health is shooting up testosterone and tanning at 75 years old
49
DeterminedThrowaway16 hr ago
+126
>European countries where this care is less politicized
You're incredibly wrong about it being less politicized. The Cass Review was fundamentally political
126
remyontheroad16 hr ago
+66
Plus, the fascists in Europe are literally using US policy and politics to justify their own rollbacks. The NYT is one such example. They allowed rando opinion authors (Pamela Paul, Jesse Singal etc) to publish transphobic cherry-picked drivel, and those exact articles are used in court to justify curtailing care for minors
66
Golurkcanfly16 hr ago
+57
Or Finland where the head of the transpoli is a literal hate group member.
57
spreta16 hr ago
+29
No one should answer this until YOU define “gender affirming care.”
29
SemiHemiDemiDumb16 hr ago
+74
Any evidence would be nice. Then provide how it's a systemic problem requiring government intervention. I'd curtail the care if the care stop being care and turned into harm. But evidence is in and the teens that go through the care have a better outcome than those that don't. It does more good than harm.
What would you need to accept that it's a needed therapy and treatment for children with gender dysphoria and body dysmorphia from their gender dysphoria?
74
KamikazeArchon16 hr ago
+50
>What evidence would you require to believe some minors are harmed by gender affirming care
Some minors are harmed by Band-Aids. That's literally true. You can be allergic to them and get a rash. "Some are harmed" is *completely unreasonable* as a starting point.
The world where we need to *use the legal system* to curtail such care is a world where there is strong medical consensus - among professionals unaffiliated with anti-LGBT groups - that such care consistently produces significantly more negative outcomes than positive ones.
50
[deleted]14 hr ago
-4
[removed]
-4
KamikazeArchon14 hr ago
+6
No. Intervening in medical matters is a step that should not be taken without very significant justification. I'm not looking for 51% of professionals agreeing, I'm looking for a clear consensus. Further, whenever claims of medical problems happen to align with preexisting cultural prejudice, they are automatically inherently suspect and require a higher threshold of proof.
So it would require something like 90% agreeing. And note, again, that it would have to be "this consistently causes significant harm that is worse than the benefits". All three elements are important: consistent, significant, and worse than the benefits. For example, even "consistently causes significant harm" would be insufficient. That describes *every form* of therapy for cancer, autoimmune diseases, and many other standard interventions. But it's worth it for the benefits - the alternative harm of "doing nothing" is worse.
6
[deleted]14 hr ago
+1
[removed]
1
Golurkcanfly14 hr ago
+4
Basically only countries that have a major anti-trans political lobby (UK) or have historically been *terrible* for trans people (Finland, Norway, Sweden) have pushed in that direction. Other countries who have conducted their own medical reviews have found the evidence to be generally favorable.
4
[deleted]13 hr ago
+1
[removed]
1
Golurkcanfly13 hr ago
+4
Portugal is in the "ideologically driven restrictions" camp (like the conservative parts of the US) and Denmark, like the other Nordics, is in the "medical system that has been historically terrible for trans people" camp. Like the Nordics have been literally decades behind in treatment. Harry Benjamin offered better care in the US in the 70s than the Nordics do now.
Meanwhile, even countries like Poland which have historically been terrible culturally for trans people have performed medically favorable reviews for youth GAC.
4
KamikazeArchon14 hr ago
+2
It absolutely is not.
Note again that I am explicitly dismissing any opinion from those with connections to anti-LGBT organizations.
2
Golurkcanfly16 hr ago
+64
You know that when some people are harmed by care and the vast majority who receive it benefit from it, the solution isn't to *cease care altogether*, right?
Like chemotherapy *literally kills people* but we don't exactly ban the practice because it turns out it's massively beneficial for treating cancer in most patients It's given to.
64
[deleted]14 hr ago
[removed]
0
Golurkcanfly14 hr ago
+11
Only if resources were actually dedicated to providing that care, the practices themselves are not abusive, and it was run by clinicians who actually have the patient's best interests in mind. Also, no bans on people DIYing care, since that is a genuine necessity for many people who otherwise cannot access care.
11
[deleted]14 hr ago
+1
[removed]
1
Golurkcanfly14 hr ago
+6
Testosterone is a controlled substance because of roiders but all other DIY medications are perfectly legal to purchase without a prescription.
6
[deleted]14 hr ago
+1
[removed]
1
Golurkcanfly13 hr ago
+7
It depends on labeling, basically. Like there are items you can't legally sell as food that you can legally sell as other things.
There used to be a time where you could flat out buy progesterone raw powder on Amazon.
7
stegosaurus133715 hr ago
+11
Some people are literally killed by almost every life-saving procedure and medication we've ever invented. The bar for curtailing the care isn't "some people are harmed," it's "more people are harmed than helped." Do you have any evidence of that being true? Real, scientific evidence? If so, publish it.
As it stands, existing studies on GAC have shown that it improves outcomes. There should still be more studies - there should basically always be more studies, medicine is complicated - but if your bar is "no one is harmed" then we stop doing medicine at all.
Like, a fraction of people have adverse reactions to vaccines. That doesn't mean we don't vaccinate people. As much as ~9% of the global population is allergic to penicillin - should we stop using it? No, obviously. You just adapt the standard of care as best you can to account for the margins.
Transition regret rates are, frankly, astonishingly low. An order of magnitude below knee and hip replacement. We should still care about those people, and do due diligence to prevent them from making a decision they'll regret (which is already the standard, it's not like you just walk in "bottom surgery please!" and the doctors are like sure, sign on the line) - but the system will never be perfect, and it makes no sense to deny patients care that has a 99% chance of helping them just because it isn't 100%.
11
[deleted]14 hr ago
[removed]
0
Mysterious-Anxiety7614 hr ago
+5
and where is your evidence that more are harmed rather than helped?
5
[deleted]13 hr ago
+1
[removed]
1
Mysterious-Anxiety7613 hr ago
+5
you are still asserting that more people were harmed with hypotheticals and no evidence.
5
witchgrove16 hr ago
+37
Many European countries haven't lmao. Look at France.
37
[deleted]14 hr ago
-1
[removed]
-1
Golurkcanfly14 hr ago
+10
This is exaclty the opposite of what happened. France has *expanded* access to GAC following new research and guidelines by the French Society of Pediatric Endocrinology and Diabetology.
10
[deleted]14 hr ago
[removed]
0
Golurkcanfly14 hr ago
+7
Bernard Lane isn't a reliable source, and you're aware that this article neither touches on the guidelines I described nor actually details France pulling away from GAC for minors. It's largely just saying "this anti-trans interest group says this about trans care."
7
witchgrove14 hr ago
+7
This is false.
7
annabelleoftheball16 hr ago
+92
Hi! I’m a pediatric nurse and a relative of a trans minor. Gender affirming care for teens is health care and denying it leads to a direct correlation in suicides.
What evidence would you require to believe that this type of healthcare is necessary and life saving for many people, minors included? Maybe we just stop obsessing over what everyone has in their pants?
92
sks01016 hr ago
+52
No. We should not make any medical care less accessible because a vanishingly small number of people misuse or abuse it. If that is found to be the case, we have many laws by which those responsible could be charged. Gun violence is orders of magnitude a greater problem and these people don't want to do anything about it. That should tell you all you need to know about their true motivations.
52
insan3guy15 hr ago
+13
f*** off.
Protect trans kids.
13
joegetto16 hr ago
+23
Curtailing what?
23
drizel16 hr ago
+27
What evidence would you require to believe some aren't harmed?
27
SheogorathMyBeloved16 hr ago
+43
I have lifelong nerve damage from a surgery I had as a minor. It's not uncommon, many other people who had the same surgery have it. Should we go about banning that one, too? How about banning things like playgrounds, as some minors are harmed there?
In "many" European countries, gender affirming care is extremely politicised. It's completely banned in "many" European countries. In the ones that it is not yet banned, you have to go through several psychiatrists and therapists to ensure you know full well what you're doing, what risks it has, how irreversible it is, and so on. That's more than I got for my surgery.
F*** right off with your faux concern.
43
Arboreal_Web16 hr ago
+19
Right? Trans person here. I bashed my nose and deviated my septum on a playground as a kid. Stupid fake train engine. We should def ban playgrounds.
(please-oh-please don’t let the “/s” be necessary)
“Some kids might be harmed” is exactly why gender-affirming care for minors is mostly talk-based counseling, change of name/pronouns, and hormone *blockers* at most (which simply delay the onset of puberty like hitting a pause button, and are a long-accepted pediatric treatment for cis kids with precocious puberty). All of the arguments against are based on bad faith and falsifiable ~~talking points~~ dog-whistles.
19
[deleted]14 hr ago
-2
[removed]
-2
la_reddite15 hr ago
+8
Congratulations: you just argued that chemotherapy should be illegal for children!
8
AmyNotAmiable15 hr ago
+13
Well I am transgender, so I know exactly how much harm its absence causes.
I lost my entire adolescence and young adulthood. I'm only now starting to live life, in my 30s, and it is extremely expensive to undo just some of the harm that could have been very cheaply and easily prevented. I'm lucky to even be alive.
You don't know what you're talking about, and the entire premise of your line of questioning is ridiculous. Plus, more importantly, it's none of your business and certainly not the government's.
13
Sacred-Lambkin13 hr ago
+2
Some evidence that it's harming minors more than any other form of health care for minors would be nice.
2
EgbertSouse194016 hr ago
+49
Weird how pedophiles in elected office keep demanding private information on minors
49
narkybark11 hr ago
+1
When you're a star, they just let you do it.
1
Gamer_Grease17 hr ago
+26
Any given hospital in New York is going to have way better lawyers than the federal government.
26
AGrandNewAdventure13 hr ago
+10
"Our conservative voters are starting to get angry at us for all the stupid shit we're doing! Quick... turn back to oppressing transgender people!"
10
CravingNature15 hr ago
+15
There is a list of powerful people that hung out on pedo island. Maybe spend your time on that list you shit birds
15
WakingOwl111 hr ago
+4
The hospital system my kid works for in a bluer than blue state capitulated in advance on limiting trans health care to anyone 19 and under. Hospital systems are terrified of losing federal funding.
4
Life-Sun-14 hr ago
+4
The US Justice system is just a tool used to target the vulnerable and protect the powerful. There is no justice nor democracy left.
4
spewwwintothis15 hr ago
+13
I don't think people are angry enough about this type of c***.
Considering this and the Gender Care Tracking legislation in Tennessee, I'm seriously scared for our trans friends
13
Icolan13 hr ago
+3
How can they file suit in Texas against a New York entity? That does not make any sense.
3
w0rdpainter15 hr ago
+5
I can think of a big ol’ stain on our nation’s history, but it sure as hell isn’t evidence-backed health care for transgender youth.
5
garlic800816 hr ago
+10
That will definitely help the economy.
10
kolt45euph15 hr ago
+7
Not a lawyer, but doesn't this violate HIPAA somehow? Or, is there a legal carve out for creeps working for the justice dept so they can gain access to confidential medical records? As a former govt employee, it was drilled in to my head that failing to protect or remove identifying info from medical files under your custodianship could get you federal jail time/fines.
7
Wide__Stance12 hr ago
+6
Yes, there is a legal carve out for this exact purpose. There’s also no jail time possible for violating HIPAA. There’s no private right of action, either, as the only legal entity responsible for enforcing it is the Department of Health and Human Services. It’s punishable by a $10,000 maximum fine per violation.
The whole “privacy” part of the Portability Act was kind of an afterthought to get bipartisan support for a bill that was *mostly* intended to standardize billing codes for insurance companies.
I don’t like it, but that’s how it is.
(Most states have state-level versions these days, but those wouldn’t apply to any grand jury, federal or otherwise).
6
georgeyp14 hr ago
+1
Usually we randomize and anonymize subjects in studies b/c of that exactly
1
dantesmaster0012 hr ago
+3
Ridiculous, it’s a waste of tax payer money, waste of manpower for 1% of the population
3
GEARHEADGus13 hr ago
+2
Why is the Right obsessed with children?
2
pruneforce1714 hr ago
+2
imagine prosecuting people for providing the consensus agreed upon research-backed scientifically-sound appropriate medical care for a rare medical condition
what a shitty world we live in
2
IvyDamon4 hr ago
+1
The energy spent on this kind of investigation could have gone into actually helping people. Medical decisions should stay between patients and doctors. Full stop.
1
MentalDisintegrat1on14 hr ago
New York should tell them to fk off.
This current regime is breaking and ignoring laws it's fair game.
0
Euphoric_Anxiety_16214 hr ago
-3
Wonder who might be most angry @ trans ppl & why. Honestly.
-3
[deleted]16 hr ago
-54
[removed]
-54
TechieInTheTrees16 hr ago
+36
I'm gonna blow your mind with this. Patients are individual people with a unique set of experiences and circumstances. Bottom surgery for under 18s is exceptionally rare and against the policy of every major doctors organization in the us including the largest one, the American Medical Association.
Top surgery is slightly more common but still exceptionally rare, and cisgender children under 18 have top surgery for a variety of reasons all the time. The most common gender affirming surgery for under 18s is breast tissue reduction in cisgender boys.
36
santovendetta16 hr ago
+33
Gender affirming medical care for trans minors does happen - generally in the form of reversable blockers to delay the effects of natal puberty and give minors more time to make an informed decision. In older teens full hormone therapy is sometimes given. It is a good thing and considered the best practice by concensus of medical institutions.
Conservatives want to paint gender affirming care for trans minors as gender affirming surgery primarily. That almost never happens.
33
[deleted]16 hr ago
-46
[removed]
-46
whynotjoin16 hr ago
+36
This is an incredible misunderstanding of how puberty blockers are used in any care (including cis children, let alone trans children) and very much incorrect precisely *because* of how they are used.
36
[deleted]16 hr ago
-31
[removed]
-31
whynotjoin15 hr ago
+27
You mean the President of WPATH- the organization that sets the standards for trans care, including use of puberty blockers? The same Dr Bowers who does, in fact, still support the use of puberty blockers as part of gender affirming care, and gender affirming care in general, but believes there should be additional study- which literally everybody supports?
27
[deleted]15 hr ago
-13
[removed]
-13
TechieInTheTrees15 hr ago
+20
*"A study about gender affirming care for children is going to involve children receiving gender affirming care"* \-Hour-Ad78
20
whynotjoin15 hr ago
+15
'We should not study this area of pediatric medicine, and also we need to stop this medical care because it hasn't been studied' sure gives the game away.
But you're right there's no ethical way to do a double blind study on puberty blockers- but that's precisely *because* of the denial of access to the control group given the already available data (and when it comes to HRT forget it- you literally cannot do a blind study at all, let alone ethically given current available data on the positive impacts of gender affirming care)
(PS- 80%+ of pediatric medicine is in the same levels of confidence of gender affirming care. So what's next? Going to start saying kids should be denied cancer treatment? Novacaine? etc etc)
15
[deleted]15 hr ago
[removed]
0
whynotjoin15 hr ago
+15
Oh, so you just don't understand that medical studies involving children are carefully planned and literally already exist across medicine. Hell, I participated in a medical study at 14 testing a new drug being tested for use in dentistry- and that was over 20 years ago!
15
explosivecrate15 hr ago
+12
So we just, shouldn't ever develop medicines or treatments for children?
12
[deleted]15 hr ago
[removed]
0
engin__r15 hr ago
+10
How do you think we get medicine for children if no one is allowed to test medicine on children?
10
Difficult-Rip-258015 hr ago
+7
What modern treatment do you suppose never had child testing?
7
Golurkcanfly14 hr ago
+6
Do you think GAC hadn't been tested on adults prior? People have been medically transitioning for over a century now.
6
witchgrove15 hr ago
+12
Bowers was a popular surgeon for a particular SRS technique years ago. She's not the 'leading SRS surgeon'.
12
engin__r16 hr ago
+15
No, that’s not how it works.
15
yhwhx16 hr ago
+19
Forcing a kid, against their will, to go through the puberty of the gender with which they do not identify is child abuse.
19
Rubthebuddhas15 hr ago
+13
Since when was child abuse an issue for republicans?
13
[deleted]16 hr ago
-19
[removed]
-19
woahwoahwoah2816 hr ago
+26
Being dumb enough to call puberty blockers "irreversible" when they've been used for decades in cisgender populations is abuse to us all.
26
[deleted]16 hr ago
[removed]
0
woahwoahwoah2815 hr ago
+20
If by "looked up," you mean "watched Matt Walsh's idiotic documentary or read a Free Press article on it," I have spared myself from doing such a thing.
If you mean "look at the medical community's consensus on the topic from top experts in the field and aligned my views with evidence-based practice," I have sufficiently looked it up.
\>GnRH analogues don't cause permanent physical changes. Instead, they pause puberty. That offers a chance to explore gender identity. It also gives youth and their families time to plan for the psychological, medical, developmental, social and legal issues that may lie ahead.
\>When a person stops taking GnRH analogues, puberty starts again.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/gender-dysphoria/in-depth/pubertal-blockers/art-20459075
20
TechieInTheTrees15 hr ago
+22
Ah. Throw in the towel, everyone! Known not-a-doctor, Hour-Ad78 has decided that gender affirming care is bad in every single case everywhere!
Good! I'm glad you disagree, that doesn't give you the right to come between me or my child and our doctor.
Inflicting irreversible effects from forcing a child to go through the wrong puberty is child abuse.
22
[deleted]15 hr ago
-3
[removed]
-3
TechieInTheTrees15 hr ago
+19
*we* wont, because of this thing called HIPAA. Generally a child's medical care is between the patient, parent, and doctor.
But just anecdotally from someone who lived in a state that was affected by the ban: I just got my hormones illegally off the internet. You can try to ban this care all you want, there will still be trans people.
19
[deleted]15 hr ago
+1
[removed]
1
TechieInTheTrees15 hr ago
+20
Yeah precisely which is why a blanket ban for all trans youth is f****** ridiculous. But DIY hormones are safer than suicide. They saved my life.
20
[deleted]15 hr ago
+1
[removed]
1
TechieInTheTrees15 hr ago
+16
Do you agree or disagree that taking a standard dosage of estrogen and spironolactone you bought off the internet is less dangerous than shooting yourself with a shotgun?
16
whynotjoin15 hr ago
+16
> inflicting irreversible effects
Boy have I got news for you about what puberty does (as does a whole host of pediatric care)
16
FeatherShard14 hr ago
+6
Yes, because the effects of puberty are famously reversible
6
CumOnEileen6942015 hr ago
+6
Do you agree there are some effects from puberty that are also irreversible?
If so, then why is complete deference given to one set of irreversible effects vs another?
6
[deleted]15 hr ago
-2
[removed]
-2
CumOnEileen6942014 hr ago
+10
Like wisdom teeth, phimosis, and cancer right?
Like in a cisgender person, yes natal puberty does not cause lasting permanent negative effects.
In a transgender person, natal puberty has been shown to drastically increase the distress cause by gender dysphoria. Which we can successfully avoid through puberty suppression followed by intense mental health counseling to confirm the diagnosis of gender dysphoria, then if the diagnosis is confirmed, can be treated with HRT to induce puberty through the sex hormone that will not cause the patient distress.
Much like how most people’s wisdom teeth will be fine, but a small portion of the population will need them removed.
10
la_reddite14 hr ago
+9
It's like you've never heard of wisdom teeth.
9
[deleted]14 hr ago
+1
[removed]
1
engin__r14 hr ago
+6
Natural doesn’t mean good.
6
[deleted]14 hr ago
-7
[removed]
-7
Mutant-Cat13 hr ago
+1
Tell me you've never spoken to a doctor/scientist without telling me you've never spoken to a doctor/scientist
162 Comments