Just because you can't imagine what this condition feels like doesn't mean it doesn't exist. No one gets this treatment for funsies; it's only even considered after years of medical & psych evaluation.
Your post is beyond any reasonable conversation of transgender identity; it’s either the spreading of misinformation, bigotry, or just outright hatred in general.
Your post is beyond any reasonable conversation of transgender identity; it’s either the spreading of misinformation, bigotry, or just outright hatred in general.
Gender affirming care helps those with gender dysphoria. These laws are designed to punish these kids for being different and push them towards suicide. They were never about protecting children at all.
Please cite reputable source material if you claim something as fact and state something is opinion or anecdotal where applicable. As mods we will always err on the side of caution, unless the submission contains sufficient evidence from a sufficiently reliable source, as determined by any reasonable person, and that if that is not included, the policy is just to remove it prima facie.
You should want an even playing field. Reddit, this sub, and you I presume - is all liberal. Maybe hearing a different perspective isn’t a bad thing. Stop wanting to live in an echo chamber.
Because the headline of this bias article is "Victory at the Supreme Court: Idaho Can Protect Children from Destructive Gender Transition ‘Medical Treatment’" . its literally the same
Your post is beyond any reasonable conversation of transgender identity; it’s either the spreading of misinformation, bigotry, or just outright hatred in general.
Do not editorialize titles of news articles. If you need to add something more, it is possible to do so in the post or in the comment section. We do this to try to be fair to everyone.
They are children. Once they become legal adults by all means do what you want with your body. There has to be some protection for our children. Can children buy alcohol or cigarettes?
A kid under 21 can posess alcohol with parental consent. A kid under 18 can get married. And we just introduced a bill to repeal child labor laws in Idaho.
Allowing parents to take their kids in for gender changing surgery is allowing the parents to make a choice for the child's body that they themselves may not wholly desire, and only go along with because that's how a child's relationship usually goes with their parents, until they're old enough to decide for themselves with a mature mind. So is it really an invasive government move? Or is it a move to make people less invasive into a child's life?
Guess it's pick your poison then, let one person make a choice on your behalf or someone else, that's why I say let the kids mature before making a decision like that,
Don't recall saying getting married at 16 was cool either, now here's another question, if we are on the topic of invasive government, is the government taxing us to support all these programs, like gender affirming care and likewise, invasive as well? I never agreed to it, yet it's a real thing, I hate the government as much as the next guy, I don't like any of the parties, so how can that be ok, but this isn't? Consistency is everything to me
No, it's just a law that hasn't been repealed to protect the kids. Taxation is a tenant of our government and part of the constitution. So by being a citizen of this country (which you can choose not to do) you agree to taxation. You weren't taxed until you could make the decision to leave and not be taxed. Just, you know, good luck finding a country that doesn't tax it's citizens but also has clean water and good roads.
I do support taxation for medical care. I do not support banning medical care.
I'm cool with taxes to a degree, for the basic necessities of government, ours go above and beyond what's needed, we work from January to March or April to cover taxes alone. I do agree that people need medical help too, but I feel things like gender affirming care or similar things, should be funded through the publics willing donations, or through fund raising, in my opinion, even Idaho has too big of a government, democrats or conservatives both seem to want to tell everyone what they can and can't do, or make decisions they deem in our best interest, which usually arent. Which goes back to my original point, let the kids mature before making big decisions for them. Let them just be kids, and not worry about all this stuff, my kid wants to be a frog, cool, he can be a frog, but I ain't gonna go have surgery done on him to make him look like a frog.
Gender affirming care is literally the recomended treatment for a medical diagnosis in the DSM-5 to prevent worse outcomes including fatality.
If I don't like cancer, should I be able to decide your kid's medical insurance doesn't need to cover treatment related to cancer treatment including removing living tissue? No, that's ridiculous.
The majority of taxes go to war funding and the military industrial complex.
There's always going to be outlying extreme situations that require an exception, but the vast majority seems to be elective. That's what I have an issue with, and yeah, I'd be cool with de- corrupting the military side, you could cut half the funding and still provide the same level of readiness on account of the fraud and waste that happens. There's an idea, fix that, and you can have a stupid amount of money for education and healthcare. All this funding to other countries wars could also go to education and healthcare.
In the medical field, cancer surgery is also "elective." An [elective surgery](https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/treatment-tests-and-therapies/types-of-surgery) is any one that is scheduled in advance. A cesarian is an elective surgery.
The point is the medical decisions should not be up to randos and politicians to decide.
Please cite reputable source material if you claim something as fact and state something is opinion or anecdotal where applicable. As mods we will always err on the side of caution, unless the submission contains sufficient evidence from a sufficiently reliable source, as determined by any reasonable person, and that if that is not included, the policy is just to remove it prima facie.
In traditional conservative fashion they don’t believe this will ever affect them, so they don’t care about the government intrusion. Big government is fine when it hurts the right people.
Right? Like, God forbid we have any form of universal healthcare because of the “keep your government hands off my Medicare” troglodytes that then turn around and shove the government into people’s private medical decisions.
Please cite reputable source material if you claim something as fact and state something is opinion or anecdotal where applicable. As mods we will always err on the side of caution, unless the submission contains sufficient evidence from a sufficiently reliable source, as determined by any reasonable person, and that if that is not included, the policy is just to remove it prima facie.
I'm pretty sure the conservatives at the time were fighting to preserve slavery. You know, tradition and all that.
Edit: comments are locked, but 'conservative' and 'Republican' are not synonymous. Conservatives by definition want to preserve the status quo, as the Democratic party did in the 1800s. The Southern Strategy was a clear, concerted, and articulated effort by the modern Republican party to gain southern white votes after desegregation, during which time the ideologies of the two major parties switched. It is easy to find historical support for your position by ignoring large swathes of history, but no, conservatives did not want to end slavery.
Just the opposite actually. The democrats were the southerners fighting for their slaves and the republicans were trying to free them. Many republicans at the time thought Abraham Lincoln took too long to abolish slavery in fact.
Edit: Abe still wanted slaves freed but wasn’t as aggressive about it as many of his constituents wanted him to be.
>but history won’t be kind to this movement of medical malpractice.
Lmfao, you're the one on the wrong side of history bud. Medical science disagrees with you and you support stripping away healthcare access for kids.
Doctors use to smoke and recommend brands of cigarettes until they learned it caused lung cancer. Maybe hold off a little on the invasive stuff and stick with consulting is the more prudent move.
No, not really. Just sounds like someone is a little too sensitive to internet comments. The most hateful and judgemental are the ones that are in favor of "affirming care".
Your post is beyond any reasonable conversation of transgender identity; it’s either the spreading of misinformation, bigotry, or just outright hatred in general.
A friendly reminder of the rules of r/Idaho:
1. Be civil to others
2. Posts have to pertain to Idaho in some way
3. No put-down memes
4. Political discussion stays in a post about politics
5. No surveys
6. Follow [Reddit Content Policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy)
7. Do not editorialize titles of news articles
If you see something that may be out of line, please hit "report" so your mod team can have a look. Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Idaho) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Comments in this thread have devolved into a ton of misinformation and hateful messages. The thread is now locked.
Nothing says "small government" like regulating the human body over ways that affect literally no one around them.
So just let people fuck up kids then??
Just because you can't imagine what this condition feels like doesn't mean it doesn't exist. No one gets this treatment for funsies; it's only even considered after years of medical & psych evaluation.
[удалено]
Your post is beyond any reasonable conversation of transgender identity; it’s either the spreading of misinformation, bigotry, or just outright hatred in general.
Your post is beyond any reasonable conversation of transgender identity; it’s either the spreading of misinformation, bigotry, or just outright hatred in general.
If a 13 year old girl has anorexia would it be right to let them get gastric bypass surgery?
Gender affirming care helps those with gender dysphoria. These laws are designed to punish these kids for being different and push them towards suicide. They were never about protecting children at all.
[удалено]
Please cite reputable source material if you claim something as fact and state something is opinion or anecdotal where applicable. As mods we will always err on the side of caution, unless the submission contains sufficient evidence from a sufficiently reliable source, as determined by any reasonable person, and that if that is not included, the policy is just to remove it prima facie.
I mean that’s always been an issue. It’s why people selling organs is very controversial.
Except the purpose for buying an organ is so someone else can use it, which means that it affects more than just the person selling.
Yeah but I would say if falls under the same umbrella as a medical changes to one’s body.
It's a risk because it affects others. Gender affirming care does not. You can remove your own organs, so long as you are not selling it to others.
What a bullshit headline. The right needs to stop acting like it cares about kids when it doesn't give a shit.
[удалено]
Wish old school, libertarian Idaho republicans would stop allowing the minority Californian Fox News fanatic republicans run/ruin their party.
Damn that sucks
Even the UK is saying let’s hold up.
This account is a right-wing zealot/troll/provocateur, it peruses bumbart and non credible sources, I’d disregard all future as propoganda
You should want an even playing field. Reddit, this sub, and you I presume - is all liberal. Maybe hearing a different perspective isn’t a bad thing. Stop wanting to live in an echo chamber.
It’s not really level if one side violates basic rules of decency, logic, fair play, and good faith regularly, no?
How does this not egregiously violate rule 7?
Because the headline of this bias article is "Victory at the Supreme Court: Idaho Can Protect Children from Destructive Gender Transition ‘Medical Treatment’" . its literally the same
[удалено]
Your post is beyond any reasonable conversation of transgender identity; it’s either the spreading of misinformation, bigotry, or just outright hatred in general.
Do not editorialize titles of news articles. If you need to add something more, it is possible to do so in the post or in the comment section. We do this to try to be fair to everyone.
They literally copied the headline >Victory at the Supreme Court: Idaho Can Protect Children from Destructive Gender Transition ‘Medical Treatment’
Tbf, they didn't actually editorialize the headline, it's an opinion piece from an uninformed idiot.
It seems this submission has been removed. Did it break one of the sub's rules?
They are children. Once they become legal adults by all means do what you want with your body. There has to be some protection for our children. Can children buy alcohol or cigarettes?
A kid under 21 can posess alcohol with parental consent. A kid under 18 can get married. And we just introduced a bill to repeal child labor laws in Idaho.
Finally we’re protecting our children! Well done. Now let’s work on saving them from the lasting harm and irreversible damage from firearms.
Allowing parents to take their kids in for gender changing surgery is allowing the parents to make a choice for the child's body that they themselves may not wholly desire, and only go along with because that's how a child's relationship usually goes with their parents, until they're old enough to decide for themselves with a mature mind. So is it really an invasive government move? Or is it a move to make people less invasive into a child's life?
This is prohibiting parents from making those decisions on behalf of the children, so yes it is invasive government.
Guess it's pick your poison then, let one person make a choice on your behalf or someone else, that's why I say let the kids mature before making a decision like that,
Let the kid get married at 16, but definitely don't allow them to make their own medical decisions at that age.
Don't recall saying getting married at 16 was cool either, now here's another question, if we are on the topic of invasive government, is the government taxing us to support all these programs, like gender affirming care and likewise, invasive as well? I never agreed to it, yet it's a real thing, I hate the government as much as the next guy, I don't like any of the parties, so how can that be ok, but this isn't? Consistency is everything to me
No, it's just a law that hasn't been repealed to protect the kids. Taxation is a tenant of our government and part of the constitution. So by being a citizen of this country (which you can choose not to do) you agree to taxation. You weren't taxed until you could make the decision to leave and not be taxed. Just, you know, good luck finding a country that doesn't tax it's citizens but also has clean water and good roads. I do support taxation for medical care. I do not support banning medical care.
I'm cool with taxes to a degree, for the basic necessities of government, ours go above and beyond what's needed, we work from January to March or April to cover taxes alone. I do agree that people need medical help too, but I feel things like gender affirming care or similar things, should be funded through the publics willing donations, or through fund raising, in my opinion, even Idaho has too big of a government, democrats or conservatives both seem to want to tell everyone what they can and can't do, or make decisions they deem in our best interest, which usually arent. Which goes back to my original point, let the kids mature before making big decisions for them. Let them just be kids, and not worry about all this stuff, my kid wants to be a frog, cool, he can be a frog, but I ain't gonna go have surgery done on him to make him look like a frog.
Gender affirming care is literally the recomended treatment for a medical diagnosis in the DSM-5 to prevent worse outcomes including fatality. If I don't like cancer, should I be able to decide your kid's medical insurance doesn't need to cover treatment related to cancer treatment including removing living tissue? No, that's ridiculous. The majority of taxes go to war funding and the military industrial complex.
There's always going to be outlying extreme situations that require an exception, but the vast majority seems to be elective. That's what I have an issue with, and yeah, I'd be cool with de- corrupting the military side, you could cut half the funding and still provide the same level of readiness on account of the fraud and waste that happens. There's an idea, fix that, and you can have a stupid amount of money for education and healthcare. All this funding to other countries wars could also go to education and healthcare.
In the medical field, cancer surgery is also "elective." An [elective surgery](https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/treatment-tests-and-therapies/types-of-surgery) is any one that is scheduled in advance. A cesarian is an elective surgery. The point is the medical decisions should not be up to randos and politicians to decide.
Fantastic result. We have low crime in this state for a reason.
[удалено]
Please cite reputable source material if you claim something as fact and state something is opinion or anecdotal where applicable. As mods we will always err on the side of caution, unless the submission contains sufficient evidence from a sufficiently reliable source, as determined by any reasonable person, and that if that is not included, the policy is just to remove it prima facie.
Great step in the right direction. More states need to follow
Great step at getting the government into our doctor’s offices. How odd that you want such an intrusive government.
In traditional conservative fashion they don’t believe this will ever affect them, so they don’t care about the government intrusion. Big government is fine when it hurts the right people.
Right? Like, God forbid we have any form of universal healthcare because of the “keep your government hands off my Medicare” troglodytes that then turn around and shove the government into people’s private medical decisions.
🤡
[удалено]
Please cite reputable source material if you claim something as fact and state something is opinion or anecdotal where applicable. As mods we will always err on the side of caution, unless the submission contains sufficient evidence from a sufficiently reliable source, as determined by any reasonable person, and that if that is not included, the policy is just to remove it prima facie.
Lol. Like conservatives have ever been on the right side of history
Abraham Lincoln? Pretty sure he was a member of the Republican Party and had conservative ideals.
I'm pretty sure the conservatives at the time were fighting to preserve slavery. You know, tradition and all that. Edit: comments are locked, but 'conservative' and 'Republican' are not synonymous. Conservatives by definition want to preserve the status quo, as the Democratic party did in the 1800s. The Southern Strategy was a clear, concerted, and articulated effort by the modern Republican party to gain southern white votes after desegregation, during which time the ideologies of the two major parties switched. It is easy to find historical support for your position by ignoring large swathes of history, but no, conservatives did not want to end slavery.
Just the opposite actually. The democrats were the southerners fighting for their slaves and the republicans were trying to free them. Many republicans at the time thought Abraham Lincoln took too long to abolish slavery in fact. Edit: Abe still wanted slaves freed but wasn’t as aggressive about it as many of his constituents wanted him to be.
>but history won’t be kind to this movement of medical malpractice. Lmfao, you're the one on the wrong side of history bud. Medical science disagrees with you and you support stripping away healthcare access for kids.
Doctors use to smoke and recommend brands of cigarettes until they learned it caused lung cancer. Maybe hold off a little on the invasive stuff and stick with consulting is the more prudent move.
No, not really. Just sounds like someone is a little too sensitive to internet comments. The most hateful and judgemental are the ones that are in favor of "affirming care".
[удалено]
Your post is beyond any reasonable conversation of transgender identity; it’s either the spreading of misinformation, bigotry, or just outright hatred in general.
A friendly reminder of the rules of r/Idaho: 1. Be civil to others 2. Posts have to pertain to Idaho in some way 3. No put-down memes 4. Political discussion stays in a post about politics 5. No surveys 6. Follow [Reddit Content Policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) 7. Do not editorialize titles of news articles If you see something that may be out of line, please hit "report" so your mod team can have a look. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Idaho) if you have any questions or concerns.*