(She/Her)
(Credit to analognowhere.com/_/aitici/ for my profile pic!)
Annie Andrews who ran an ad saying she opposed trans healthcare for minors?
“So I want you to hear me loud and clear. I don’t support biological men playing women’s sports, and I don’t support and haven’t ever performed gender surgery for minors. I’m Dr. Annie Andrews, and I approve this message…”
Are people not allowed to criticize the dems after the midterms now too?
And 0.1 Truss!
Yeah this entire thread is (unfortunately) great for expanding my block and tag lists.
Yeah I found a copy of it, here are the relevant parts I was thinking of in this response:
I don’t understand it right now, and I would even say I disagree.
“Leaning towards being against”
Does this stuff harm or hurt folks in the long run? Only time will tell.
“Just asking questions”
I wanted to be the same gender as the only parent that was there for me, and I think a lot of what we’re seeing here is similar to that.
“pushed into transitioning”
It’s quite curious that we’re trying to allow folks that can’t drive, drink, vote, join the military, or do any other number of adult activities alter their body like this
Both “insinuating medical transition happens at 8 years old” and “trans kids are too stupid to know they’re trans and undergo HRT driven puberty, but cis kids can undergo natal puberty perfectly fine”. A 2 for 1 special, how fun.
Edit:
Maybe it would be worth it to talk to someone that’s grown up, someone that went through this themselves. Someone that received the gender affirming care while they were young… although that might be hard to find for this very reason. … I just don’t think the experience I’m looking for has even happened in a person yet (due to the mentioned legal issues)
Also this is stupid for a multitude of reasons and shows you didn’t do even a tiny bit of research beforehand
If thats how several trans people in this thread took your argument it might be a good opportunity to self-reflect.
I would not call people being (rightfully) annoyed at you evil. What I would call evil is posting, on an article about the rights of trans kids being stripped away, how you’re “just asking questions” about why trans kids shouldn’t have the right to the correct puberty the same as their cis peers, while ignoring the sources people offer to you and using as your source a single article by a right-wing, anti-abortion christian site, out of some fear that kids are being pushed into transitioning. A fear that is being created by the people behind the rollback of trans rights, using the age old technique of accusing queer people of “grooming kids” (whether that’s turning them gay, trans, or anything else). One that you are being told is wrong from both actual medical studies as well as personal experience (I almost guarantee every trans person can tell you a story of medical gatekeeping they or someone they know experienced). Even as adults getting on HRT is not always an easy task, and as a minor it can be almost impossible.
Sorry that you feel trans people are being rude to you, but you have no idea how often we hear this exact same argument from cis people who think they somehow know better than medical experts and actual trans people about whether kids are too stupid to know that they’re trans but somehow not too stupid to know that they’re cis.
And, respectfully, you yourself did not approach this topic with the respect it deserves. Your initial now removed comment insinuated an 8 year old child not yet seeking medical intervention was the age for “alter[ing] their body like this” (eg medically transitioning), said how you were “leaning towards being against” “don’t understand… and would say [you] even disagree” about trans care for minors [edit: correction since I misremembered exact wording], and reused a common TERF and transphobe talking point about how its possible you could have been pushed into transitioning as a child were it more well known and accepted, with no evidence other than a vague feeling. Your comment being removed is entirely fair and not evidence of mistreatment.
Its difficult to find large scale studies due to both the fact trans people are often understudied/represented in medical literature, and the existence of trans minors is so highly politicized. Almost all generally agreed upon data points to regret rates for gender affirming care being extremely low compared to almost every other type of treatment. Beginning HRT while you aren’t trans is pretty likely to give you biochemical dysphoria very quickly, the same way not being on HRT while you are trans can cause biochemical dysphoria.
If a cis child is able to begin puberty without people calling into question whether the child is mature enough to make such a life altering decision, there’s no reason a trans child should be unable to begin puberty blockers or HRT at the age they’d typically begin puberty regardless.
Choosing not to allow trans children to take necessary medical steps to transition is not a neutral choice. The wrong puberty can irreversibly damage your body in ways that are impossible or very expensive to fix, and the torture of seeing that happen to yourself and be unable to prevent it can’t be overstated.
No 8 year old is starting HRT, because they aren’t at the age to begin puberty. If a child is insistent in their gender idenity being incongruous with the puberty they will undergo long term, there is no reason to prevent them accessing HRT at the correct age, and if there is any doubt, the neutral option to pause unwanted changes in the interim is puberty blockers.
Gender confirmation surgeries are very uncommon for minors, and typically only happen to those who have already undergone the wrong puberty and have developed unwanted secondary sex characteristics (typically just top surgery for trans mascs). Breast reduction surgery for cis boys is the vast majority of gender confirmation surgery on minors, and among trans minors specifically the rate of gender affirming surgery is around 0.0021% for those 15-17, 0.0001% for those 13-14, and 0 for 12 and under. And the best way to reduce this number is by letting trans teens access puberty blockers and HRT.
Edit: Also there have 1000% been trans minors who started HRT as a minor and are now trans adults who are still on HRT. The rate of desisting for minors who identify as trans is like ~2%, and most of those who do do so by age 10 (eg before any HRT or gender affirming care outside of social transition). [source]
Yeah the constant through line on every one of these kinds of posts from people that minorities of any type are too stupid to understand that Republicans are bad for them or something is kinda gross. Like basically every left-leaning minority person discussing Democrat politicians falling short gets that republican policies are typically worse, the issue is not having a good alternative that’s not still bad, and choosing not to vote for them is based on that, not some notion that they’ll be better off under a republican. The whole point of voting is supposed to be that your vote gives you leverage to influence politicians to take your stance (or more accurately to convince you of that to keep people from doing actions that actually meaningfully affect change).
Saying “vote blue no matter who” or whatever equivalent of you should vote for a democrat no matter what just allows democrats to ignore that supposed leverage and hold voters hostage by using MAGA as a point of leverage to try and force people to vote for them. There’s a reason that Trump never got arrested under Biden, or barred from office, and Democrats kept preaching unity rather than consequences. They directly benefit from MAGA existing.
Trump isn’t even the problem at the end of the day, he’s a symptom of a much deeper problem that won’t be fixed by just electing a Democrat majority for 8 years straight, much less for one election. The entire US was founded on racism, sexism, and classism, and those were written into the foundation of the electoral college, the senate, the house, and everythting else. The democrats have no incentive to fix that though as long as they keep winning roughly 50% of the time and can get their money and help their corporate backers.
Anyway sorry for the rant lol, I’m just also frustrated by the number of cis people in this post saying dismissive or kinda transphobic things and being upvoted for it lol.
My issue isn’t whether voting for a democratic candidate or not is better overall as a trans person, I think basically every trans person in the US knows that policy wise a democrat will, at worst, be the same as the republican they’re running against on trans rights specifically, and at least a bit better on some others. (There is a consistent belief on every one of these posts that somehow trans people don’t understand that as well, which is a different issue lol)
The point is that if a politician doesn’t lose support/votes for taking an anti-trans position, then there’s nothing punishing them for taking that position. That’s the argument being made about how voting for an anti-trans democrat is voting against your own good, not because of their policy specifically, but because by voting for them in spite of it you send a signal that their position on trans issues can be the same as a republicans as long as they’re marginally better than one in other ways.
For what its worth, I’m trans and am planning on voting for all Democrats in the midterms, even though I’m disappointed in a few of them. However, there are a couple candidates mentioned in this article specifically (namely cuellar + kaptur and a few others) where I think not voting for them has a very strong argument I’d consider if I lived in those states.
Currently in the US trans people in federal prisons are forcibly detransitioned, trans minors can’t access necessary healthcare, including the compromise option of puberty blockers, and “trans ideology” was included as one of the “biggest threats to america” in a terms of what the current administration is focusing on in the name of anti-terrorism. Saying that trying to improve that situation is “not high on your priorities” or “a major concern” just because trans people are a small part of the population (especially when discussing an article about the democratic party continuing to shift towards anti-trans language and policy) is, at best, extremely insensitive.
I like how its always a minorities job to vote against their own self interest “for the greater good” and not the job of a Democratic politician to not throw them under the bus. Especially with how seemingly extremely important this one demographic is if a significant portion of said demographic not voting will cause the candidate to lose.
A deeply unpopular and morally bankrupt position that costs key votes for a Democratic candidate, and then leads to neoliberals blaming a minority group’s lack of support for the candidate losing rather than the candidate choosing not to appeal to a seemingly very important chunk of their voting base? Maybe.
I mean gender affirming surgery is by far (97%) done on cis boys with gynomastecia. The most common form of trans gender affirming surgery for minors is also top surgery on transmascs, but the rates are like 0.0021% for 15-17 and 0.0001% for 13-14. (The rates being that low also really shows how hard it already is for trans kids to access the care they need tbh.) People opposing one and not the other is just bigotry. And I mean cis girls are allowed to get breast implants at 16 with parental consent in a lot of places.
And yeah sports wise women’s leagues actually started cause men were upset about losing to women once they started being allowed to compete lmao. But as long as we have separate men’s and women’s leagues trans women should still be allowed to compete in women’s leagues.