NC SB514 Transgender Bill: Read It For Yourself
It is titled “Youth Health Protection Act” but NC SB514 will be debated as the latest in a series of state legislatures taking up medical care and treatment of transgender minors.
Three North Carolina Republican lawmakers introduced a bill Monday that would prevent doctors from performing gender reassignment surgery for transgender people younger than 21.
The legislation follows a nationwide trend of GOP-controlled state legislatures looking to limit treatments for transgender adolescents. Unlike other states, however, North Carolina would classify adults between the ages of 18 and 21 as minors under the “Youth Health Protection Act.”
Medical professionals who facilitate a transgender person’s desire to present themselves or appear in a way that is inconsistent with their biological sex could have their license revoked and face civil fines of up to $1,000 per occurrence. The measure bars doctors from providing gender confirming hormone treatment, puberty blockers or surgery.
Senate Bill 514 would also compel state employees to immediately notify parents in writing if their child displays “gender nonconformity” or expresses a desire to be treated in a way that is incompatible with the gender they were assigned at birth. LGBTQ advocates fear the bill would out people under 21 who tell state workers that they may be transgender.
While Republicans hold both houses of the legislature, the bill has little chance of become law even if passed with Democratic Governor Roy Cooper sure to veto it.
Read NC SB514 for yourself here:
S514v0
So they are “protecting” children – that’s the rationale, right? Do they have even one person saying they want to be protected like this, or wished they had been protected like this. Or do they just have disgruntled relatives – siblings, cousins, grandparents, aunts and uncles who don’t approve and are claiming to “protect” a child who doesn’t generally want this protection.
I’ve heard literally hundreds of trans people say they wish they could have been on hormone blockers before puberty. I have yet to find anyone say that they wish they hadn’t been put on them.Report
I don’t think anecdata is quite the right way to look at this. No doubt the people drafting the legislation have their own. Best to keep it a matter of medical ethics between individual patients and their doctors.Report
I don’t know. It’s not like I have a crystal ball or something. However, I have seen a lot that suggests that personal stories are far more persuasive than abstract principles. Most people who have turned around on their trans-acceptance have done so because of some sort of personal contact. That’s what it seems like to me, anyway.Report
I don’t think that’s persuasive to the people who need to be persuaded. Increasing visibility of trans people is good for broader trans acceptance but it isn’t really the concern. The concern is the perception (regardless of whether it’s true) that children are carelessly being given permanent, life altering treatments based on fleeting whims of early adolescence.
The response to that needs to be it is only done where clinically merited, the pros clearly outweigh the cons, and where informed consent is thoroughly established and documented.Report
I’m getting very tired of “Well, people have been lying a lot and this has made gullible/stupid/biased people unhappy, we need to cater to their worries”.
Catering to their worries doesn’t assuage them, they’ll simply fall for the next stupid lie. Catering to their worries tells them “you’re right to be worried, here’s what we’re doing about the problem” which is NOT what you want to convey when there is no problem, because it’s entirely fabricated.
Sadly “You’re either gullible, foolish, stupid, or simply want to believe these lies, which makes you the problem” does not work either.
But the last thing you want to do is give legitimacy to falsehoods. You’re doing the work of whomever is peddling the lies for them.Report
Convincing people open to being convinced is part of politics in a democracy. If you are too tired, I suggest a nap.Report
The revealing part of this is how “normal” or “respectable” Republican voters respond.
What I mean is the sort of people who habitually vote Republican, but will quickly and indignantly assure you they are not bigots and why, they have a gay friend.
Is this sort of ugly open bigotry enough to make them vote for someone other than a Republican?
Or, as we saw with Trump, ugly bigotry may not be what they want, but it isn’t a deal-breaker. They are willing to accept it and turn their eyes away if it gets them whatever else they want.Report
Translation: Fighting racism isn’t their first priority.
That’s especially true since “racism” can be defined as “seeking a good school for your kids”.
If you’re not going to be happy no matter what I do, then you might as well be unhappy with less.Report
Translation: Fighting bigotry isn’t their first priority.
Yes, this is exactly the point.
That upholding the very basic, foundational premise of America is less important than some other agenda item they prefer.Report
Democracy is ugly that way.
The good news is being a racist is mostly a net-vote-loser (which, despite what you said about “foundational”, is a pretty new thing) so there’s that.Report
“Convincing people open to being convinced is part of politics in a democracy/ If you are too tired, I suggest a nap”
Funny, my post was about not giving lies legitimacy. Not that. But….thanks!
Great way to show my point in action. Rather than address what I said, you decided to make up something different. Now do I shift to address the lie you told, therefore giving it legitimacy by implying that WAS my point? Or do I write you off as not open to being convinced, due to leading with a lie?Report
What lie did I tell? And how is explaining to someone they’ve been lied to by providing the truth ‘giving a lie legitimacy’?Report
See, you continue to do it. Rather than address my point, you’ve invented a new point, claimed I made it, and want to argue that. (Inventing a new point and claiming it’s mine is a lie, btw.. And if you actually think my post was me complaining that it’s too much work to convince people arguing in good faith, you’re illiterate. Since you can post here, I can rule that out and thus the lie).
If I indulge you in it, it looks like that’s really my point.
I admire your dedication to helping me prove it, but I think it’s sufficient. So we’ll bring this to a close, since you’re committed to the lie or, well, functionally incapable of reading comprehension in English.
So to sum up what inMD has helpfully demonstrated: Engaging strawmen — which are lies, for those playing along at home — lends them legitimacy.
Ignoring them lets them go uncorrected. So what to do?
I don’t know, but pretending liars are telling the truth is clearly not the way to go.Report
I’m legitimately lost. I was joking a bit in my initial response of course, which was intended to be light humor, not an attack. So maybe restate what you were getting at and I’ll try again?Report
As conservatives lose ground, they are digging in their heels ever more furiously and becoming ever more militant.
This will get worse before it gets better.Report
They need an enemy to stay relevant, and they’re giving up on demonizing the gays.
The ideal enemy will be tiny, weak, threatening-your-children, and impossible to actually make go away.
I think the solution for this sort of thing is to make all laws have sunsets so the pollical branch has things to do and doesn’t need to invent problems.Report
The political aspect of this I don’t understand is that they’ve done this at the beginning of the term, not just prior to an election. Beginning of term is where you do things that are a bit unpopular, and the summer before election is where you do the “boost turnout” things. Which this seems like.
I don’t get it.Report
you got the chessboard out, though. they’re playing something, but it ain’t chess. not checkers. not chinese checkers. certainly not parcheesi. more like gas station knockoff pokemon.
maybe it’s a series of probable-to-certain legislative (or court) losses to bolster 2022 efforts with a “see, we tried but something something something the conspiracy against your family”?Report
Striking while the iron is hot?Report
This one is unlikely to survive a veto.Report
Certainly and they have to know that. So their point is to make a statement and goose money/energy for 22 which says plenty.Report
I feel we need a constitional amendment that jurisdictions get exactly _one_ age of maturity. They can pick what it is, but they only get one.
You can’t pretend that 17-year-old, or even younger, are adults for the purpose of legal liability for their actions, and then require people to be 21 before they are ‘mature’ enough to consent to a specific sort of medical treatment.
Especially when where there actually _is_ an age of medical consent. It’s 16 in North Carolina.
BTW: I love how they _explicitly_ allow the non-consensual surgeries done on intersex _infants_. They don’t even come up with a justification.Report
Alcohol. Vote. Firearms. Driving. Having sex.
Getting a one age fits all seems like a problem.Report
The real kicker, of course, is _this_:
That’s right, that’s mandatory reporting of gay kids, or even kids that might seem to be gay.
Oh, is that not ‘gender nonconformity’? Because I’m pretty sure dating the ‘wrong people’ for your gender _is_ nonconforming, and has been considered so for most of history.
Alright, what exactly is ‘gender conformity’, and the lack thereof that children must be reported for? Girls wearing dresses? Boys liking sports? What _exactly_ are the gender rules?
Please enlighten us, North Carolina legislature, exactly how _should_ little girls and little boys behave, so we know which behaviors are out of line and adults must MANDATORILY REPORT them for?
Oh, and explain to me how, under title 11, this isn’t blatantly illegal? Asserting that there are specific ways that genders need to behave, and that teachers have to police this, is so illegal at this point that is not even funny.Report