Ohio Bans Gender Affirming Medical and Mental Health Care for Transgender Children

[WrestlingRasta]

1 hour ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

Word salad garbage, to rationalize away your reason for honestly contributing.  

Not shadow of doubt. Any proof that isn't just opinion.

I am interested in opinions as much as to determine if someone is honest in how they came about them. If they aren't going to be honest or are unwilling to share the pedigree, there is no reason to continue. As these are sensitive issues, I can understand how difficult it might be to have an unpopular opinion and not wanting to share it. Mine are, seemingly, unpopular here. That may be due to the population that choose to frequent this site. I am not shy about my opinions and my reasons for having them. 

You seem to be much more interested in arguing people’s opinion than understanding them. It displays in your countering over and over again every opinion you don’t agree with. 
 

But carry on, to each their own. 
Enjoy the weekend! 

[ThreePointTakedown]

25 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

You seem to be much more interested in arguing people’s opinion than understanding them. It displays in your countering over and over again every opinion you don’t agree with. 
 

But carry on, to each their own. 
Enjoy the weekend! 

Can you challenge my opinions without trying to assume my intent? Doesn't seem like it. It seems as if you're trying to avoid traps or having to do any work to back your opinion. If you're uninterested in providing the reason for your opinion and some clarifying information, why join the conversation? At this point you know where this goes: You state opinion. I ask why that is and add my own opinion. You say, 'its pretty obvious.' I say, 'doesn't seem like it.' You say, 'I rest my case.' in so many words and resort to assuming my intent. How many subjects has this played out on in the last two weeks? Ask ChatJBT? J or m. 

You said, 'I rest my case' without offering any clarity or response to the post. As if its just self evident that your opinion is proven. It seems like you're worried about where the conversation is going. So lead it instead of rage-quitting because of whatever reason. 

[mspart]

5 hours ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

All of these points are fair. If this study and the conclusions are true. There should be no reason to ban the process or practice altogether. This is more information that parents and kids could use to make their health care decisions decisions. Medications have side effects. We know this. 

What is gained by forcefully discontinuing this practice across the board? Along with any mental health care they could use/benefit from? 

Seems cruel and ignorant to ban something that so few people utilize and benefit from(medical/mental health care). 

 

So your solution is to experiment on the vulnerable.    Nice solution.   Oh but there's only a small amount of them so let's experiment on them possibly ruining their lives.   Now that's a sane and safe solution.   And oh so very compassionate. 

mspart

[mspart]

4 hours ago, Ohio Elite said:

 

It's good the D's are rich enough to go out and buy a black outfit for the occasion.   Real working class heros.  What a bunch of idiots that want the young women of Utah to possibly get horribly hurt.  

I have reffed intramural sports that were co-ed.   We had to calm guys down that were going at it too hard and hurting the women.   Bunch of idiots. 

mspart

[WrestlingRasta]

5 hours ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

Can you challenge my opinions without trying to assume my intent? Doesn't seem like it. It seems as if you're trying to avoid traps or having to do any work to back your opinion. If you're uninterested in providing the reason for your opinion and some clarifying information, why join the conversation? At this point you know where this goes: You state opinion. I ask why that is and add my own opinion. You say, 'its pretty obvious.' I say, 'doesn't seem like it.' You say, 'I rest my case.' in so many words and resort to assuming my intent. How many subjects has this played out on in the last two weeks? Ask ChatJBT? J or m. 

You said, 'I rest my case' without offering any clarity or response to the post. As if it’s just self evident that your opinion is proven. It seems like you're worried about where the conversation is going. So lead it instead of rage-quitting because of whatever reason. 

I’m glad you were able to get that off your chest. Let me know next time you are looking to seek some understanding. I’m always here to help. 

[ThreePointTakedown]

On 1/26/2024 at 7:26 PM, mspart said:

So your solution is to experiment on the vulnerable.    Nice solution.   Oh but there's only a small amount of them so let's experiment on them possibly ruining their lives.   Now that's a sane and safe solution.   And oh so very compassionate. 

mspart

Do you understand what a 'straw man' is? You created one so let me try. By your logic, we should never try anything new when we learn new information because you don't like the idea of experimenting. In that case, could we have ever accomplished anything in the medical field, ever? Hint: No. Could we have done, achieved, discovered, or cured anything in the history of ever? Hint: Again, no. 

If the topic makes you feel uncomfortable, that's a valid reason. It doesn't and shouldn't hold any water with regards to the medical decisions people make for themselves. You have failed to show that allowing them to attain their chosen health care track causes or might cause more harm than not. Keeping in mind there are none/zero/0 medical treatments without side effects. 

[WrestlingRasta]

Not for nothing, but working with the girls programs is some of the most fun I’ve ever had in wrestling. 

[Bigbrog]

I can't believe someone would argue for experimenting on children.  There is seriously something wrong with you if you think it is okay to give KIDS biologically altering drugs of any sort because of how they feel.  As adults...go for it, do whatever your little heart desires to your body and chemical make-up, but doing that to KIDS is f'ing sick!

[ThreePointTakedown]

2 hours ago, Bigbrog said:

I can't believe someone would argue for experimenting on children.  There is seriously something wrong with you if you think it is okay to give KIDS biologically altering drugs of any sort because of how they feel.  As adults...go for it, do whatever your little heart desires to your body and chemical make-up, but doing that to KIDS is f'ing sick!

Do you understand the procedures, protocols, and treatments for the people in these situations? What they go through? Their state of mind and how they view the world? Or their opinion of how the world views them? Because prescribing drugs to children happens all the time. You're no upset about the others, just these. And I find it funny that you ignored the last thing I wrote, probably because it makes your point moot, and repeated yourself as if in a rage-induced fugue state. 

See this is where I think you're confused. If you don't understand the thing you are talking about its ok to ask questions or look things up. 

Firstly, the law is banning mental health care for these conditions, in addition to other medical procedures and protocols,  which is just stupid. Its an over reach and the very thing they would rail against in any other situation. So, hypocrites. Mental health care is not experimentation. Helping someone through a tough part in their lives is never a bad idea but to deny them that is cruel. None of this is experimentation. If you want to stick your fingers in your ears and scream 'EXPERIMENTING ON KIDS!' over and over, fine. But you ARE wrong! No amount of yelling will change that. All the medicines and treatments have been done/used before and the effects and side effects are known. 

Don't get me wrong you can have genuine objections to all the parts, that make up medical care for people in these situations. I don't think you currently have a genuine objection. I have no doubt if you learned about it more, you might be able to describe a procedure or protocol that you object to and why. Your reasoning, general as it is, tells me you know only what you've been told or read in sensationalized headlines and little more. It also tells me that you don't know and/or cannot sympathize with anyone in this situation, parents or kids. So your icky feelings about it have won out rather than learning and understanding. 

[Bigbrog]

The last thing I would ever do is take advice or be lectured by a whackadoodle on the internet so save yourself all the typing psycho.  You are the last person who anyone on here should be lectured by....

[WrestlingRasta]

11 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

Firstly, the law is banning mental health care for these conditions,

Explain this please?  I said before I'm curious how this is laid out.   What does the law do precisely that bans the mental health care?

[billyhoyle]

I'd prefer if they let trans men compete against men. Texas has a similar law and the result was a transgender wrestler demolishing the women's bracket a couple years ago-it was a level of imparity that only a PSU wrestling fan would enjoy watching. 

[ThreePointTakedown]

13 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

The last thing I would ever do is take advice or be lectured by a whackadoodle on the internet so save yourself all the typing psycho.  You are the last person who anyone on here should be lectured by....

Its already happened. 

(tip of the cap)

Cherrio!

[braves121]

9 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

Explain this please?  I said before I'm curious how this is laid out.   What does the law do precisely that bans the mental health care?

https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2024/01/24/ohio-senate-overrides-dewine-vetoes-on-trans-youth-gender-affirming-care-and-local-tobacco-bans/

 

A 2022 study published in JAMA Network Open found access to hormones and puberty blockers for young people ages 13-20 was associated with a 60% lower odds of moderate to severe depression and a 73% lower odds of self-harm or suicidal thoughts compared to youths who didn’t get these medications

[ThreePointTakedown]

12 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

Explain this please?  I said before I'm curious how this is laid out.   What does the law do precisely that bans the mental health care?

From what I've read: 

Prohibits: 

• counselors and educators from concealing or encouraging adolescents to conceal their feelings of gender dysphoria from their parents.
• referrals for medicalized treatments for minors with Gender Dysphoria
• Medicaid from covering the cost of SRS for minors.
• any requirement for private insurers to cover medicalized treatments for gender dysphoria in adolescents.
• hormone blockers for Gender Dysphoria prior to the age of 18.
• cross-sex hormones for youth experiencing gender dysphoria prior to the age of 18.
• surgical interventions or Sex Reassignment Surgery (SRS) for minors. this one is, in my opinion the most controversial, and I get it. It is rare, but still should be an option. 

Threatens to: 

• remove the licensure of physicians who provide this care and threatens them with civil lawsuits. The American Academy of Pediatrics approves of the care. How would/could law makers know better? 
• Withdraw public funds from any hospital at which gender affirming care occurs That doesn't punish anyone for no reason whatsoever. 

Either way, it works to chill/prohibit someone from attaining or providing the care. Which will put people in danger. The more barriers there are the less inclined people are to try to do the work. Doctors will hesitate and parents will hesitate. Which means who is in danger? KIDS! Despite the small number of kids are you ok with them being at elevated risk for self harm? 

[ThreePointTakedown]

On 1/26/2024 at 7:29 PM, mspart said:

It's good the D's are rich enough to go out and buy a black outfit for the occasion.   Real working class heros.  What a bunch of idiots that want the young women of Utah to possibly get horribly hurt.  

I have reffed intramural sports that were co-ed.   We had to calm guys down that were going at it too hard and hurting the women.   Bunch of idiots. 

mspart

Or they had to reach into the closet and get the funeral outfit they hoped they wouldn't need to wear so soon. 

Protecting girls from a new boogieman has been the motivation of some horrible laws. This is no different. I'll bet you can think of a few others? Eh.. Eh.. Wrong side of history, yet again. 

So you're saying our culture has taught and rewarded some people for being overly zealous on a sports field/court/pitch and others suffer the consequences for it? Shocking. 

[WrestlingRasta]

30 minutes ago, braves121 said:

https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2024/01/24/ohio-senate-overrides-dewine-vetoes-on-trans-youth-gender-affirming-care-and-local-tobacco-bans/

 

A 2022 study published in JAMA Network Open found access to hormones and puberty blockers for young people ages 13-20 was associated with a 60% lower odds of moderate to severe depression and a 73% lower odds of self-harm or suicidal thoughts compared to youths who didn’t get these medications

Thanks for the link. I don’t see in there where it bans mental health care, but I suppose we could parse words on that with elements of ‘affirming care’. 

As I said before I personally am fine with anything that deals with mental health, coping skills, emotional management, etc at whatever age…..but when it comes to puberty blockers, hormone therapy, etc..just no. 

[Bigbrog]

2 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

Thanks for the link. I don’t see in there where it bans mental health care, but I suppose we could parse words on that with elements of ‘affirming care’. 

As I said before I personally am fine with anything that deals with mental health, coping skills, emotional management, etc at whatever age…..but when it comes to puberty blockers, hormone therapy, etc..just no. 

This!

I too don't see it documented that mental health care is banned by any policy

[Offthemat]

Who benefits from transforming someone with a dysfunctional brain into someone with a dysfunctional brain and a dysfunctional reproductive system?

 

Edited January 29 by Offthemat

[Lipdrag]

1 hour ago, Offthemat said:

Who benefits from transforming someone with a dysfunctional brain into someone with a dysfunctional brain and a dysfunctional reproductive system?

According to Margaret Sanger (founder of planned parenthood) - the rest of us.

[mspart]

7 hours ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

By your logic, we should never try anything new when we learn new information because you don't like the idea of experimenting.

 

By your logic the experiments on the Tuskeegee Airmen was justified in the name of science.   By your logic, checking to see how much radiation a person can take before dying is also completely justified.  

What you are saying is monstrous.   If you are for the sterilization of vulnerable children, just say so.   Actually you don't have to because you have been saying so without actually committing yourself to that.  Even it was a small chance of irreparable harm, that is not a good enough reason to experiment on any children.   Can you see where you are?   You are advocating experimenting on the most vulnerable among us who  have no real say - the children.    I have no patience for this.   It is mean, cruel, and evil.   There are no other words for it. 

By your logic the 3rd Reich was justified in their human experimentations.   That's a really dark place to put yourself. 

mspart

[mspart]

2 hours ago, WrestlingRasta said:

Thanks for the link. I don’t see in there where it bans mental health care, but I suppose we could parse words on that with elements of ‘affirming care’. 

As I said before I personally am fine with anything that deals with mental health, coping skills, emotional management, etc at whatever age…..but when it comes to puberty blockers, hormone therapy, etc..just no. 

^  This

mspart

[Offthemat]

1 hour ago, Lipdrag said:

According to Margaret Sanger (founder of planned parenthood) - the rest of us.

But I don’t benefit as much as these ‘health’ providers. 

[ThreePointTakedown]

15 hours ago, mspart said:

By your logic the experiments on the Tuskeegee Airmen was justified in the name of science.   By your logic, checking to see how much radiation a person can take before dying is also completely justified.  

What you are saying is monstrous.   If you are for the sterilization of vulnerable children, just say so.   Actually you don't have to because you have been saying so without actually committing yourself to that.  Even it was a small chance of irreparable harm, that is not a good enough reason to experiment on any children.   Can you see where you are?   You are advocating experimenting on the most vulnerable among us who  have no real say - the children.    I have no patience for this.   It is mean, cruel, and evil.   There are no other words for it. 

By your logic the 3rd Reich was justified in their human experimentations.   That's a really dark place to put yourself. 

mspart

I'm sorry my point makes yours moot. That's all I can say at this time.

That you feel comfortable invoking hitler I feel you are unable to absorb things because you're too busy defending yourself to yourself. 

[JimmyBT]

1 hour ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

I'm sorry my point makes yours moot. That's all I can say at this time.

That you feel comfortable invoking hitler I feel you are unable to absorb things because you're too busy defending yourself to yourself. 

The only one here defending themselves to their own “word salad” self is YOU.  You’re response is a typical one for you too.  Telling him that you’re right and he’s wrong because he disagrees with you while throwing in a word like hitler.  You should probably get some help