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 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 ------- 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% 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.
It's pretty clearly about more than simple puberty blockers. Especially given the section following the above text laying out support for mental health issues to work through the frustrations and feelings to avoid the negative effects of early transition. They even flat out say that minors receiving therapy/counseling resolve their issues without permanent medical intervention/modification.
#125 | Posted by jpw
Which is exactly the treatment path that US doctors most heavily rely on.
Even if one were to rely on Bellringers grossly inflated, false number of 0.3% of all US youth, then puberty blockers are used in extremely rare cases.
When one looks at the actual data then we see it's much more rare than that with the treatment being prescribed to less than 0.1% of trans or gender-diverse youth, a sub-group that makes up 3% of total youth. We are talking as low as 5k patients in total
I say that not to dismiss the significance of that number but to further emphasize what I already said in #86. There are a group of patients with physical and/or hormonal differences that make it so they can't be easily classified into the male/female/trans trichotomy that the discussion so often focuses on and none of the data that I've read appears to address how many of those patients are included among the total who have received puberty blockers or surgery.