That's not the case but you NEED to believe that because you're scared to deal with the thread topic.
#144 | Posted by BellRinger
That's hilarious coming from the person who ran and hid after he was taken to school on gender affirming care not long ago. I'll refresh your memory.
The follow is selected from a past article you posted in which you were expressing support for DHS proposed bans on the types of treatments being discussed in this current article you posted.
Do you honestly support chemical castration and surgical mutilation of minors?
#6 | Posted by BellRinger
What percent of American minors receive such treatments?
#53 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce
That is such a terrible argument. What is .3% of 340 million people? Oh, so it's "statistically" low, medically damaging but because it's statistically low, SCREW the victims.
Unless the left is able to scrub this history will view this horribly.
#62 | Posted by BellRinger
****I'm interjecting because your unsourced .3% of 340M appeared to be wildly inaccurate. Actual data from the insurance industry puts the number at less than 0.1% of trans or gender-diverse youth, a sub-group that makes up about 3% of total youth. Back to the previous posts*****
I didn't make an argument. I asked a question about a statistic.
Here's another stat: studies indicate that up to 1.7% of U.S. children are born with intersex traits. This includes individuals whose chromosomal sex does not match their phenotypic sex, as well as those with other conditions affecting primary or secondary sexual characteristics. These conditions can result in atypical genital appearance, disorders of sexual development, hormonal irregularities, breast development in males, excess facial or body hair in females, and similar variations.
So here's another question about a statistic: what percentage of that 0.3% (your claim) is included within that 1.7%?
Now here's an argument for you. The data DHS is relying on to justify the proposed treatment bans does not attempt to answer that question. In fact, DHS does not even collect the patient-level data that would make answering it possible. As written, the regulations would either outright ban or severely restrict access to treatments for people with the conditions described above. While there is some wiggle room in regulations but their broad language is likely to lead providers to refuse care altogether. The risk of losing federal funding will outweigh the incentive to act in the best interest of the patient. Insurers will welcome new rules they can use to justify denial of coverage for the rare and often expensive treatments that may be needed by such patients.
We have already seen, since the overturning of Roe v. Wade, how treatment bans have lead to sharp increases in infant and maternal deaths along with avoidable infertility. The politicians who enacted those bans insist that these outcomes were not their intent, but they were entirely foreseeable. The same dynamic will play out here. Lawmakers will claim they never intended to block teenage boys from receiving hormones or surgery to treat gynecomastia, or to prevent girls with Turner syndrome from accessing treatments that protect sexual function, or any of the dozens of other similar foreseeable scenarios I can think of. Their intent doesn't change the reality that such bans will result in patient harm.
#86 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce
So, at 2:35 in the morning I decided to go to bed...A couple of posts deserve a well-thought response which I hope to get to.
#122 | Posted by BellRinger
Arrested Development Narrator: He did not get to them.
#196 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce
