There is no money for that. Our governor and the GOP think it is more important to issue welfare checks to private school kid’s parents than to feed kids of all socioeconomic status.
Gender-affirming care ban in ‘best interest’ of Iowa children, Gov. Kim Reynolds says
- Thread starter cigaretteman
- Start date
Of course it's an umbrella term, just like cancer care, etc. because it involves a number of different therapies and treatments and behaviors. I think the most destructive part of this law is that it prohibits the use of puberty blockers. That makes no sense. Use of puberty blockers buys time for these young people to ultimately decide the path of their biological/gender maturation process. It's reversible. Without their use their biological puberty maturation goes unchecked and ultimately becomes irreversible outside of radical surgery. So the State's laws are now making decisions for these kids in their time of uncertainty. That's a dumb law.
Sure, and if they put more controls in place, such as requiring a minimum number of visitors before a minor could be even prescribed first-level puberty blockers or something along those lines; require a 2nd opinion at a certain point, etc.
I disagree firmly with a blanket ban such as this.
I wonder if in the future some of these kids being denied care by the state will be able to sue for the damages incurred by needing major surgery that wouldn't have been required if they had been allowed to take puberty blockers.
Well, they're already suing providers for performing surgery & prescribing hormones without, it's argued, providing proper assessment beforehand.
I'm talking about denying puberty blockers for minors not surgery. I don't think many people have a problem with making surgery only available for adults, but making puberty blockers unavailable is a different story. The effect of blockers is reversable and they keep certain characteristics from developing until the individual is old enough to make permanent decisions as a mature adult. By denying treatment using puberty blockers, the state is insuring that any person transitioning will need major surgery to not look like a girl or guy in drag. (I am not talking about bottom surgery which many transgendered people never have done.)
Again... the worry would be making sure the right people get the right treatment.
As far as risks, you have bone density, possibly cognitive development, and infertility. (that I can recall)
This is also off-label usage. Strength and length of treatment in the age group -- risks included -- may not be well defined. (the drugs are approved for early puberty and certain cancers)
A few things in my reading: (off the top of my head)
- Sometimes puberty provides clarity for the child with gender dysphoria. The feelings resolve themselves.
- Most of the time when a blocker is started, hormones follow. When that happens the changes tend to be more locked in and it's a lot harder to go back.
- Concerns about infertility arise -- especially in males -- with blocker + hormones
- Crucially, there are also major concerns about ability to achieve orgasm with blocker + hormones.
So it's a pretty high stakes decision. And it's being made by pre-teens. The stakes are lesser if they're just on the blocker for a bit and jump off, but that's not what usually happens.
It's being made by patients, parents, and doctors. How many other high stakes medical conditions for minors does the state need to decide? It's ridiculous you and lawmakers are deciding that you know better than the people actually involved and medical professionals. Sounds a lot like the people who are convinced that invermectin is a cure for covid.
No. Like I said before, I'm not saying everything should be banned. My biggest worry is the explosion of interest in these services and whether or not we're effectively weeding out those who may benefit from the treatment from those who may not. (or would come later to regret it)
But yes, I am saying plainly that I'm concerned that doctors, patients and parents can screw this up.
Partially because it became a political hot button topic, and a topic of general interest in pop-culture. Kids get to go on youtube and watch stuff about this -- they get to seek out peer-groups online. They get to diagnose themselves. There's tons of information and interest in the topic, and more broadly, LGBTQ stuff in general. Totally different dynamic than we used to have around this sort of thing.
Partially because adults are caught up in the politics -- you can get pulled onto the side that says the worst thing you could do is not affirm a kid properly.
Partially because we don't have good longterm studies on a whole range of people who go through these treatments. Partially because procedures and practices around clinics aren't necessarily well followed or designed yet. It's still a bit of a wild-west scenario.
If you're overly eager to affirm, you can give shoddy care to the kids that are getting caught up in something they're going to regret. We've already seen them in stories -- we see them on r/detrans on reddit. How many are we going to create?
The worry is that you create way too many of these situations and you have something that looks like medical malpractice, in the end.
Then instead of banning the treatment for all minors set up a procedure for appropriate steps that need to be taken before puberty blockers can be given. The state could set up a review board of medical professionals that have to approve an individual receiving blockers. Blanket banning of care for minors is short sighted and cruel.
Seems like a whole lot of time and effort and money for very few people. Doesn't seem like time needs to be spent on this subject. File it away and revisit years down the road maybe.
Yes, but she is going to think about it long and hard, and will be a very painful decision for her. But, it's what is best for them.
It really isn't much of a place to leave this article in a discussion about something much, much different.I suppose this is as good a place as any to leave this...
World Athletics bans transgender women from competing in female world ranking events
World Athletics has banned transgender women from competing in the female category at international events.www.bbc.com
The State of Iowa seems to think creating several laws to restrict those very few people was important enough to spend time, effort, and money. I agree with you that there is a very small number of transgendered people, but you would think it's one of the most important issues of our time with the way Republican lawmakers are focused on this topic throughout the US. I imagine even a smaller number "normal" people will benefit from these new laws at the expense of those very few people. In my opinion it's a political stunt that benefits almost no one except the politicians.
A
anon_b29nm7v7dwp6r
Guest
I think we should also ban all gun or gun like object operation by youths as well. If you’re not 18, no 22 rifles, BB, air soft, cap or paintball guns.
I think it’s outrageous we are allowing radical parents to make these outrageous decisions to indoctrinate their kids in a radical firearm culture.
I think it’s outrageous we are allowing radical parents to make these outrageous decisions to indoctrinate their kids in a radical firearm culture.
You are already describing Iowa. No sexual reassignment therapy until turning an adult.
I don’t think they should get hormones either.
Therapy and that’s it.
Kids that cut too much weight for wrestling in High school often look like mutants later in life. I doubt hormone therapy will do any favors either.
You are entitled to that opinion. I am okay with hormones as long as the appropriate medical professionals deem it necessary. I am definitely against srs before 18 though.
You are a wing nut stooge for saying minors and pre-teens can’t decide on gender surgery or puberty blockers? My God, get a grip!!! So many things in this country children are not allowed to do due to age and the fact that their brains are not fully developed. If they want to get it at 18, go for it. I don’t understand why this bothers people so much? Why don’t we allow children to make decisions on whether they want to go to school or why do we have laws that say a person can’t smoke or drink until they reach a certain age? The humanity! 🙄. You must live a very intense life if laws like this infuriate you so badly. Why can’t we just have girls getting breast implants whenever they want, also?Hey Kimmie, I thought you were all for parents' rights. Shouldn't it be up to parents what's in their kids' best interest? She's such a pathetic wingnut stooge:
Banning gender-affirming care for Iowans under the age of 18 is “in the best interest of the kids,” to whom her heart goes out, Gov. Kim Reynolds said Tuesday.
Reynolds also fired back at the proposed law’s critics, who she said remind her of the critics of her move to reopen Iowa’s schools and businesses earlier than some other states during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Reynolds discussed the proposed gender-affirming ban, which needs only her signature to become state law, and other topics during a news conference Tuesday at the Iowa Department of Public Safety.
Gender-affirming care ban in ‘best interest’ of Iowa children, Kim Reynolds says
Governor discusses transgender bills during her first formal news conference in 8 monthswww.thegazette.com
Advertisement
It was Reynolds’ first formal news conference in eight months.
Reynolds scheduled the news conference, along with the state public safety department, to discuss a new state program for Iowans to anonymously report concerns about potential threat of school violence. She then fielded a handful of questions on other topics.
Republican state lawmakers have approved two pieces of legislation that they say will protect Iowa’s children and critics say put transgender children at risk.
One bill, Senate File 482, would prohibit transgender students in Iowa’s K-12 schools from using bathrooms that align with their gender identity.
The other, Senate File 538, would ban gender-affirming care — like hormone therapies, puberty blockers and cosmetic surgeries — for minors.
Both bills passed with only Republican support in the Iowa Legislatur, and await Reynolds’ signature. It is likely that both will face legal challenges from opponents if Reynolds signs them into law.
On Iowa Politics
Newsletter Signup
Legislative & Politics News Delivered to your inbox each weekday
The bills, Reynolds said, have not yet been delivered to her office.
Echoing arguments made by some Republican lawmakers during debate, Reynolds on Tuesday said she does not believe the science is settled on the long-term impacts of gender-affirming care.
All major American medical organizations — including the American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics and American Psychiatric Association — say gender-affirming care is safe and encourage it as a treatment for gender dysphoria, which is when an individual feels like they are a different gender than their birth gender.
Reynolds and other Republicans have pointed to studies and actions in some European countries. For example, the United Kingdom’s only center dedicated to gender identity treatment for children will close, and Sweden last year began restricting hormone therapy for minors.
Most medical studies show gender-affirming care is beneficial for young people experiencing gender dysphoria. Some have noted possible long-term effects and suggest more research is needed.
“We don’t even understand the long-term effects. … We don’t know,” Reynolds said Tuesday. “So I don’t think it’s too much to ask, to say I don’t know what the rush is when we don’t have science that’s conclusive.”
She said it reminded her of 2020, early in the COVID pandemic.
“It reminded me of, we’re standing here a couple of years ago during COVID when I had the medical profession and the media unleash on me because I had the gall of saying that our children should be back in a classroom and that masks should not mandated,” Reynolds said.
When asked what is her message to transgender youth and families who feel, in consultation with their physician, that gender-affirming care is right for them and helps them escape suicidal thoughts, Reynolds said her heart goes out to them.
“I’m a parent. I’m a grandmother. I know how difficult this is,” Reynolds said. “This is an extremely uncomfortable position for me to be in. And I don’t like it.
“But I have to do what I believe, right now, is in the best interest of the kids until we can have some more research done or we can see what’s happening in some of the other countries that have been doing this, to better understand the impact. I think that’s reasonable.”
You want the government intervening in your children’s healthcare and making those decisions for them? Think about that perspective and simmer the eff down.
BTW minors aren’t making those types of decisions by themselves. I don’t know why you believe that to be the case.
Yeah, from what I understand, the best evidence we have for items like puberty blockers working are with the kids that had consistently from an age well before puberty identified as the opposite sex. That was the classic case most of the research started on. And while Sweden scaled back, they also made exceptions for some cases. So my inclination would be to say that those sorts of cases would be ones you would pursue.
@Roodolf is an NC account that’s marinating in the 30 day wait period before he can post. Created on March 2nd, we’ll be able to officially add him to @TC Nole OX monkeys on the computer record starting April 2nd. Looking forward to the day!
Hahaha.Hey Kimmie, I thought you were all for parents' rights. Shouldn't it be up to parents what's in their kids' best interest? She's such a pathetic wingnut stooge:
Banning gender-affirming care for Iowans under the age of 18 is “in the best interest of the kids,” to whom her heart goes out, Gov. Kim Reynolds said Tuesday.
Reynolds also fired back at the proposed law’s critics, who she said remind her of the critics of her move to reopen Iowa’s schools and businesses earlier than some other states during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Reynolds discussed the proposed gender-affirming ban, which needs only her signature to become state law, and other topics during a news conference Tuesday at the Iowa Department of Public Safety.
Gender-affirming care ban in ‘best interest’ of Iowa children, Kim Reynolds says
Governor discusses transgender bills during her first formal news conference in 8 months
Advertisement
It was Reynolds’ first formal news conference in eight months.
Reynolds scheduled the news conference, along with the state public safety department, to discuss a new state program for Iowans to anonymously report concerns about potential threat of school violence. She then fielded a handful of questions on other topics.
Republican state lawmakers have approved two pieces of legislation that they say will protect Iowa’s children and critics say put transgender children at risk.
One bill, Senate File 482, would prohibit transgender students in Iowa’s K-12 schools from using bathrooms that align with their gender identity.
The other, Senate File 538, would ban gender-affirming care — like hormone therapies, puberty blockers and cosmetic surgeries — for minors.
Both bills passed with only Republican support in the Iowa Legislatur, and await Reynolds’ signature. It is likely that both will face legal challenges from opponents if Reynolds signs them into law.
On Iowa Politics
Newsletter Signup
Legislative & Politics News Delivered to your inbox each weekday
The bills, Reynolds said, have not yet been delivered to her office.
Echoing arguments made by some Republican lawmakers during debate, Reynolds on Tuesday said she does not believe the science is settled on the long-term impacts of gender-affirming care.
All major American medical organizations — including the American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics and American Psychiatric Association — say gender-affirming care is safe and encourage it as a treatment for gender dysphoria, which is when an individual feels like they are a different gender than their birth gender.
Reynolds and other Republicans have pointed to studies and actions in some European countries. For example, the United Kingdom’s only center dedicated to gender identity treatment for children will close, and Sweden last year began restricting hormone therapy for minors.
Most medical studies show gender-affirming care is beneficial for young people experiencing gender dysphoria. Some have noted possible long-term effects and suggest more research is needed.
“We don’t even understand the long-term effects. … We don’t know,” Reynolds said Tuesday. “So I don’t think it’s too much to ask, to say I don’t know what the rush is when we don’t have science that’s conclusive.”
She said it reminded her of 2020, early in the COVID pandemic.
“It reminded me of, we’re standing here a couple of years ago during COVID when I had the medical profession and the media unleash on me because I had the gall of saying that our children should be back in a classroom and that masks should not mandated,” Reynolds said.
When asked what is her message to transgender youth and families who feel, in consultation with their physician, that gender-affirming care is right for them and helps them escape suicidal thoughts, Reynolds said her heart goes out to them.
“I’m a parent. I’m a grandmother. I know how difficult this is,” Reynolds said. “This is an extremely uncomfortable position for me to be in. And I don’t like it.
“But I have to do what I believe, right now, is in the best interest of the kids until we can have some more research done or we can see what’s happening in some of the other countries that have been doing this, to better understand the impact. I think that’s reasonable.”
With the way the Republican party has banged the drum on this issue over the last couple of years, you'd think that in every town in America, kids are lining up after school every day waiting for their turn to have a willing doctor chop the kid's pecker off...without the parent's knowledge.
I'm happy that both of my children are happy, healthy, heterosexual males. If I did have a child with these issues, I would damn well expect that the child's medical care would be determined by my wife and I, with input from medical professionals who were trained in the issue, and who were very familiar with the particular circumstances of my child. I sure as hell do not want things determined by an asshole who looks at the entire issue solely from the perspective of how it can help his/her political career
The odds are reasonably good that I would resort to violence, if needed, to protect my child and my right to be the one to choose between various medical options
I'm happy that both of my children are happy, healthy, heterosexual males. If I did have a child with these issues, I would damn well expect that the child's medical care would be determined by my wife and I, with input from medical professionals who were trained in the issue, and who were very familiar with the particular circumstances of my child. I sure as hell do not want things determined by an asshole who looks at the entire issue solely from the perspective of how it can help his/her political career
The odds are reasonably good that I would resort to violence, if needed, to protect my child and my right to be the one to choose between various medical options
I wondered where you had been. Enjoy whatever new vice has taken over your HROT time.
The time part was a huge reason. It didn’t make much sense to be spending 3 hours a day on here arguing with the same people.
This place is like crack. Once you start it’s hard to stop.
The Left's obsession with sexualizing children is so insanely creepy and really makes me wonder about the people who are so passionately for it.
With the transgender thing, it's like some of you take delight in children mutilating themselves before they even really know what they are doing.
Children are stupid. They don't know what the hell they are doing. I thought I was a pig when I was 5 years old. My parents didn't put me in a pigpen and make me start oinking.
With the transgender thing, it's like some of you take delight in children mutilating themselves before they even really know what they are doing.
Children are stupid. They don't know what the hell they are doing. I thought I was a pig when I was 5 years old. My parents didn't put me in a pigpen and make me start oinking.
Pure projection. It's the Rs obsessed over this
This is not health care for a kid that age. If boys want to be a girl and visa versa and their parents are ok with it, that is their decision. Kids that young, however, should not be making life altering decisions such as sex changes and puberty blockers at such a young age. For God sakes, what is so damn bad about waiting until you are 18?
Also, minors are the ones making that decision that is ultimately supported by the parents.
Last edited:
Maybe so. Repubs are passionately against it, Liberals are passionately for it.
And I guess my point is...I really question the motives of anyone who is very passionately for anything that has to do with sexualizing children.
Like, really? THAT'S the issue you're gonna be passionate about?
It's just creepy.
