Gotta crack a few eggs to make science!
Somewhat seriously, I feel as though we’ve decided that some things are ‘too important to understand’.
And it’s not like it’s knowledge for knowledge sake. If I were considering an experimental treatment (including gender treatments) the lack of evidence would be a big obstacle for me.
That’s actually true of basically all surgery. Weirdly, drugs aren’t approved without formal studies, but new surgical practices are routinely rolled out because some surgeon thinks it’s a good idea and others follow suit. The data on stents is really muddy for much the reason data on transition is muddy. And it was only the advent of some really good drugs that led people to feel it was safe to even try doing studies on stents.
I think it’s very hard to get consent that is both fully informed and fully freely given.
For truly terminal diseases for which there is no good treatment, studies can be much more aggressive because the ethics change.
General statement to everyone (not necessarily a response to Lucy)
I do not think that it’s common knowledge that moderators can change the background coloring of their posts to indicate that the post is providing a moderator instruction to readers in general.
And formal warnings will generally be done via DM where there is a mechanism to flag the DM as being such a formal warning.
I don’t think I saw this bit of news mentioned yet:
tl;dr: Temporary injunction imposed against enforcement of parts of Florida’s prohibition of medical care for trans kids.
i particularly like this passage, which i think pretty much sums up the perversity of this law:
Hinkle said the three children in the lawsuit “will suffer irreparable harm” without treatment. Conversely, he wrote, “the treatment will affect the patients themselves, nobody else, and will cause the defendants no harm.”
What a sensible judge:
Hinkle said the three children in the lawsuit “will suffer irreparable harm” without treatment. Conversely, he wrote, “the treatment will affect the patients themselves, nobody else, and will cause the defendants no harm.”
It’s a very narrow ruling, and only covers the children and those trying to prevent care to those children.
If the ruling had been broader, it would have increased the likelihood of the state seeking to block the injunction, harming the plaintiffs.
As written, they at least have a decent shot of getting their treatment while the case continues to work through the system.
It only immediately applies to those children, but a Harvard Law professor I follow on Twitter says that it is a relatively quick procedure to add additional plaintiffs to get relieve for other teens and adults who currently are being denied care.
Side note: although the law is typically characterized as a ban on care for teens, it requires adults to sign an informed consent form in person in order to get care. That form must be a specific one issued by the state, and currently does not exist. The law does not provide a time frame for that form to be created, and no one expects it to be made any time soon.
I trust there’s legal action underway to at least oblige the state to expedite the form, and/or not enforce that requirement until they have?
That’s an interesting question. It’s not clear – there are so many anti-trans laws that have been passed this past year that the legal community is stretched thin trying to fight against them all. A number of people were complaining on Twitter earlier this week about the lack of law suits against Florida for their laws, then this injunction came out literally the next day.
So it only affects the children bringing the case? I didn’t realize that. That is disappointing.
More analysis here: https://twitter.com/Esqueer_/status/1666140098994540545
Canada, not US, but another example of how masculine looking cis girls and women are going to be heavily damaged by anti-trans rhetoric:
Side note: My 9 year old does track. Where we live, teams aren’t yet separated by gender at that age. My experience in watching races is that the boys have an advantage, but the variance is much larger than the difference in the means.
taking it forward, this is a 9 year old child, I don’t care what they are or how they were born, even if there were rules against her participation, treating her like that publicly is disgusting
“Staff intervened and actually moved the shot-put away from where he was. The gentleman was not a part of our school district. We are taking steps to ensure he is not able to be on our school property or attend events in the future.”
Dear God, what a busybody asshole.
it also said he was the Grandfather of one of the participants.
If so, hopefully he is banded until she goes to college
Is that like forced to wear a scarlet letter?
Nope but the schoolboard is talking about banning them from school property.
So, that’s nice for his grandkids. Like exhibit A, the child that he accused, AND exhibit B, his grandchild. Way to get your grandkids ostracized at school.
[Red text]Racists and 'phobes have to learn their racism and phobias somewhere. It might as well be from their grandparents.[/Red text]
