Ending child transitions in the US?
-
wrote on 29 Jan 2025, 00:02 last edited by jon-nyc
Section 4 is the kicker, as it threatens funding in a probably-defensible way. Though I’m not sure it would stop independent clinics.
Section 8 instructs DoJ to go after practitioners using existing anti-FGM laws.
-
wrote on 29 Jan 2025, 00:06 last edited by
Again... I'm loving the title selections for these EOs!
-
Section 4 is the kicker, as it threatens funding in a probably-defensible way. Though I’m not sure it would stop independent clinics.
Section 8 instructs DoJ to go after practitioners using existing anti-FGM laws.
wrote on 29 Jan 2025, 00:55 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Ending child transitions in the US?:
Section 4 is the kicker, as it threatens funding in a probably-defensible way. Though I’m not sure it would stop independent clinics.
Section 8 instructs DoJ to go after practitioners using existing anti-FGM laws.
I agree in principle about section 4, but Section 8 has the most immediate impact. Remember that the vast majority of teen transitions are girls, and the genital mutilation laws are for real.
-
wrote on 29 Jan 2025, 01:42 last edited by
But how many addadictomes (say it out loud) are performed on teens? Usually they just sterilize them and remove their breasts at that age.
-
But how many addadictomes (say it out loud) are performed on teens? Usually they just sterilize them and remove their breasts at that age.
wrote on 29 Jan 2025, 01:52 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Ending child transitions in the US?:
But how many addadictomes (say it out loud) are performed on teens? Usually they just sterilize them and remove their breasts at that age.
Could you argue that taking drugs and hormones that desensitizes and impedes the development of female genitalia is mutilation? I think so.
-
@jon-nyc said in Ending child transitions in the US?:
But how many addadictomes (say it out loud) are performed on teens? Usually they just sterilize them and remove their breasts at that age.
Could you argue that taking drugs and hormones that desensitizes and impedes the development of female genitalia is mutilation? I think so.
wrote on 29 Jan 2025, 01:54 last edited by@LuFins-Dad said in Ending child transitions in the US?:
Could you argue that taking drugs and hormones that desensitizes and impedes the development of female genitalia is mutilation?
I long for the days of the circumcision discussions.
-
wrote on 29 Jan 2025, 01:54 last edited by
The law(s) would define it. You could imagine it being general or really specific. Presumably they think it’ll work in some cases or they wouldn’t have included it.
-
wrote on 29 Jan 2025, 02:12 last edited by
Either way, it’s a step. Next up will be the legal challenges, and ultimately Congress needs to address it.