There's this brewing sentiment in the rest of the US as California residents move out: please go away and keep your broken politics and social policies away from us.
I have family out in Idaho, and they complain that there a lot of folks from California moving there and screwing up the local politics by voting for policies that broke the state of California. They joke that the first thing people do is change their plates because they don't want anyone to know they're from Cali. I can't blame them, though, because it is an absolute train-wreck of a state whose condition is epitomized by SanFran.
Idaho's great, just don't be anything but white or straight, or god forbid don't be a trans kid since the state government just barely averted banning appropriate healthcare for teenagers there.
Plus they have a sweet setup since they're the 18th-most dependent state on Federal aid, so they'll glad take money from train-wreck states like California, they just don't want the people.
Is it so wrong for people to want to be left alone? We're talking a minority (which was the majority not too long ago) wanting to be left to their social and religious moors. The whole political mess in the US is driven by a clash of ideologies.
> don't be a trans kid since the state government just barely averted banning appropriate healthcare for teenagers
Case in point: many people in the United States disagree with surgically altering minors' genitalia, for whatever reason. And they'd prefer such policies to not be implemented where they live. This is part of the "please, just leave me alone" attitude.
More relevant to this topic (crime in SF): many people in the United States would prefer for crime to actually be punished, with punishments that are actually effective. Making it legal to loot up to 1000 USD in merch isn't going to deter crime, it does the opposite. Because the law is cancerous at this point, honest business ventures are closing up shop. People in other states see the cancer and (rightly, I think) say they don't want any part of it.
> The whole political mess in the US is driven by a clash of ideologies.
Not really. When you actually analyze the situation what you have is a bunch of folks who would like to just live their lives (you know, people who are gay, or non-white, or female.)
But there are some people who are upset by this, and want to stop it, who treat it like some battle for the soul of the Nation. They go out of their way to persecute and abuse other people for no reason other than they don't like them. Mostly they are members of various weird quasi-Christian religions.
So it's not really a "clash of ideologies" so much as it is attacks by radical religious people on anybody and everybody that won't toe their religeous/ideological belief systems.
Top hit on ye olde googelle [0] from a very respected children's hospital:
===
What services does the Surgical Gender Affirmation Program offer?
The Surgical Gender Affirmation Program for teens and young adults provides:
An opportunity to talk with our care coordinator before your first appointment. They will answer questions, help you prepare for an appointment and connect you with our schedulers.
One or more consultations with surgeons and a gender surgery nurse to talk about your goals and surgery options and to plan the surgery. We will offer to connect you with Seattle Children’s Fertility Preservation Program before surgery if you are interested.
Help after preoperative consultations to get ready for surgery, including working with your insurance company to have surgery approved.
Complex procedures, including face and neck surgery, top surgery (breast/chest), bottom surgery (genitals) and body contouring.
Follow-up care after surgery to check and support healing and to smoothly transition back to your usual gender care team.
Support from a social worker to help arrange transportation and places to stay when you come to Seattle Children’s for care.
I don't know about embarrassing myself. You are right, though, I did overlook the age restriction by accident. The other gender re-assignment hospitals all have the same age restriction. Though, genital surgeries for kiddos are in the works [0]. Almost like the slope is slippery or something.
From [0]:
===
The update also recommends:
—Sex hormones — estrogen or testosterone — starting at age 14. This is often lifelong treatment. Long-term risks may include infertility and weight gain, along with strokes in trans women and high blood pressure in trans men, the guidelines say.
—Breast removal for trans boys at age 15. Previous guidance suggested this could be done at least a year after hormones, around age 17, although a specific minimum age wasn’t listed.
—Most genital surgeries starting at age 17, including womb and testicle removal, a year earlier than previous guidance.
Also don't be a woman, because there are barely any OB/GYNs there anymore since they can be prosecuted for a felony for practicing standard medical care -- and are responsible for proving that they weren't violating the law as opposed to the state having to prove that they were. They are also open to civil suits from any member of the family of a woman who loses a pregnancy under the care of a non-emergency physician. Many hospitals don't even do births anymore and will just ship you somewhere else.
You're begging the question. Reasonable, empathetic people are capable of thinking that "gender-affirming care" is an ideologically-driven phenomenon that does more harm than good.
> Plus they have a sweet setup since they're the 18th-most dependent state on Federal aid
Do you feel the same way about Virginia (second highest per capita federal balance of payments), New Mexico (4th), or Maine (9th)? They're all blue states that receive a lot more from the federal government than they pay in.
Do you also feel the same way about high income earners paying more than they get back? Because effectively that's what you're describing. California has a lot of high incomes and because the federal government does a lot of redistributing via taxation, the state as a whole pays more than it gets back. Though if you look at the per capita data[0], it works out to a few hundred bucks a year. It's also worth mentioning that since Covid, every single state has received more than it paid, and in aggregate California the most by far (which makes sense, since it's the most populous state). So California too has a sweet setup.
Implicit behind your sentiment is the idea that the "train-wreck" policies in California is causative of the high incomes that has it pay more than it gets back from the federal government. That is, your argument paraphrased is that conservative Idahoans can't criticize progressive Californians since California with its progressive policies has high incomes that pay for some of Idaho's bills via redistributed federal taxation. I find that assumption unpersuasive.
> Reasonable, empathetic people are capable of thinking that "gender-affirming care" is an ideologically-driven phenomenon that does more harm than good.
Reasonable, empathetic people who have no experience with an issue personally should mind their own damn business regarding other people's medical decisions, especially when they themselves are actually, demonstrably (not suspectedly) ideologically motivated.
>Reasonable, empathetic people who have no experience with an issue personally should mind their own damn business regarding other people's medical decisions, especially when they themselves are actually, demonstrably (not suspectedly) ideologically motivated.
Sorry, kids don't get to make medical decisions and adults don't get to make harmful decisions for them. Your rant is borderline suited to an adult, and no one else. Last, imagine couching anti-child castration and mutilation as "ideological". Competent adults label this position to as sanity.
> adults don't get to make harmful decisions for them
I believe exposing children to organized religion is inherently harmful because it inhibits the development of a scientific, evidence-based temperament that I think is an important part of good moral character. Yet billions of people drag their children to churches, mosques and temples every day.
>adults don't get to make harmful decisions for them
Actually, adults that are the parents of children get to make all sorts of decisions for children, harmful and not harmful. It's literally none of your business.
First, that anyone not agreeing with your position is actually and demonstrably ideologically motivated. It may be one of the surest signs that your position is not based on reason, when you perceive it to be so blindingly clear that anyone disagreeing must have an ulterior motive. There's another commenter who said that the only way anyone could oppose their position is through stupidity, which is along the same vein.
Second, that people should mind their own damn business. I agree with this on principle, but it does have its limits. Am I wrong to be concerned about and disapproving of the practice of female genital mutilation in parts of the world? After all, it doesn't directly affect me one bit. I suppose you might consider me a cultural imperialist for thinking it a barbaric practice. Should I equally mind my own business if I see a neighbor routinely take opiates to the point of stupor? That's his medical decision, and one that I have no experience with personally.
At some point, the line between well-meaning non-judgmentalism and craven indifference is blurred. I want to help repair the social fabric in this country because I feel it is torn and tattered. The way to do that is through open dialogue on what I think is right and wrong. I can admit that this can be taken too far, and has been in the past on many matters. What you suggest is that I keep it to myself and don't condemn others, no matter what I see, because everyone walks in their own pair of shoes. I'm not convinced that this is the better way; at least one that doesn't end up in a world where everyone only cares about themselves.
To put another way: can you imagine a fast-spreading, medically-involved phenomenon that affects minors in the long term that you would be concerned about, even if you had no personal experience with it? Or is such a thing not possible in your view?
> First, that anyone not agreeing with your position is actually and demonstrably ideologically motivated. I
I said that the people who were doing were demonstrably ideologically motivated. This is because it is true and evidenced. This has nothing to do with how I feel.
> Am I wrong to be concerned about and disapproving of the practice of female genital mutilation in parts of the world?
Is FGM a medically accepted practice? No? Then it has no relevance to this discussion.
> At some point, the line between well-meaning non-judgmentalism and craven indifference is blurred.
This is ideologically motivated people advocating that politicians and laypeople legislate medical decision making that should be between a doctor and his patient and their guardians. Whatever else is drummed up by comparing it to barbaric practices ask yourself this: would you want a politician telling you what is medically appropriate for your child?
As parents, myself and my wife get to make medical decisions for our children until they become adults.
I saw a lot of push and propaganda in schools to subvert this setup, for my kids in the name of ideology. This is now the #1 issue for me to push back on. Just a single data point.
By "heavy advertising" do you mean letting kids know it is a thing that exists? Because that's just teaching kids the facts of life, something schools have a responsibility to do (since apparently you're not willing to tell your kids that medical transition exists?) It falls under the same bucket as sex education, another thing that schools should do regardless of whether the parents think it's OK or not.
This [0] that might interest you, then, if you think schools aren't involved in transitioning children.
Relevant quote:
===
Even though the policy states that “the goal in all cases is to strive for consensus between parents/guardians and student as to the application of this policy,” it adds that the decision to participate in the “gender transition plan” belongs to the student, and “does not require additional parent/guardian consent”—unless parental/guardian rights under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), or other applicable law, would be implicated.
The primary source cited in the article seems to have been wiped and replaced with "under review", but based on the article it seems it was primarily that if a trans kid is out at school, staff shouldn't assume they're out at home and so they should default to using the kid's legal name when communicating with parents. This seems like a good policy; if someone doesn't want to come out to their parents, it may be because they fear being beaten or thrown out of their home if they do.
"Schools transitioning children" is not a coherent phrase. "Transition" in the gender sense is not a transitive verb; transition is not something done to someone by others, is something that person does themselves.
>Implicit behind your sentiment is the idea that the "train-wreck" policies in California is causative of the high incomes
Quite a straw man you built there! I hold no such opinion.
> Reasonable, empathetic people are capable of thinking that "gender-affirming care" is an ideologically-driven phenomenon
No reasonable, empathetic people that are in any genuine contact with trans kids are likely to feel this way, considering suicide rates and mental health outcomes of gender-affirming healthcare.
>Do you feel the same way about Virginia (second highest per capita federal balance of payments), New Mexico (4th), or Maine (9th)?
Are people from those states voicing the opinion that their states are well-function oases relative to the "train-wreck" that is California? I haven't heard much of it. Yet it's pretty common for red-state folks to rag on California as if their welfare governments aren't benefiting from our homofemitrans tax dollars.
> Reasonable, empathetic people are capable of thinking that "gender-affirming care" is an ideologically-driven phenomenon that does more harm than good.
The only way it is possible for a reasonable, empathetic person to believe that the state government banning GAC is good, is if they're stupid. Which is ok to some degree, many people are stupid.
If the point of gender affirming care (GAC) is to improve the mental health outcomes of the one being cared for, then it is a colossal waste of time. Mental health outcomes do not demonstrably improve after a person is placed on HRT and had their genitalia suitably modified. In fact, their long term health outcomes decline significantly later in life [0]. The suicide rate of transgender individuals is about 40%. This does not take into account whether they received GAC or not [1]. Per [0], even GAC does not improve late life all cause morbidity.
I oppose gender affirming care on the grounds that it does not effectively improve a person's life (which we can see over a 30 year period in [0]) and that it often requires damaging the delicate balance of the biological machine that is the human body.
Correct, that makes you stupid. Your premise is wrong (the correct endpoint is satisfaction and regret rates, since there are many confounding factors with something like mental health), your data doesn't show why you think it shows (the Sweden study was done in a time when the Swedish government mandated sterilization for trans people), and GAC changes the balance of the body much less than, say, lithium.
The Sweden study is backed up by the Trevor Project (which I linked above somewhere) that shows as many as 80% of the transgender population have suicidal ideations and as many as 60% have attempted suicide. And this is from self-reporting. The stats aren't just from Sweden.
And the Trevor Project report shows a number of interventions that provide statistically significant reduction in suicidal ideation and attempts. I assume you support those interventions, since you seem extremely considered with the suicide rates of LGBTQ youth.
That's crazy, my trans masc friend Kyle just carried a baby to term and delivered it, but to be fair I can't 100% confirm he didn't just hide a frozen turkey under his cardigan for 9 months
If a teenage girl standing 5'7" and weighing 80 pounds came to the doctor and said she feels too fat and needs to lose weight, the doctor would rightly tell her that she is anorexic, that her being too fat is only in her head, and that she should instead gain a bit of weight to be healthy. A doctor who instead prescribes her weight loss pills would be treated with skepticism; a doctor who performed gastric bypass on her would rightly be excoriated and maybe even have their medical license taken away. If there was an epidemic of such doctors, voters would rightly take alarm and may even petition the state legislature to ban such a practice. None of this would be stupid.
Correct, but anorexia is very different from gender dysphoria and involves diametrically opposite treatment protocols.
edit: responding to prottog:
> gender dysphoria was classified a mental illness [...] It's only very recently that with the former we started to take the (mentally unwell) patient's word over evidence.
You're the one begging the question now.
If gender dysphoria really is a mental illness, why are regret rates for gender-affirming care so low? One of the defining characteristics of a mental illness is that if you "feed into it", it gets worse. For example, with schizophrenia, you should not validate the voices someone might be hearing because doing so makes it worse. The situation with gender dysphoria is exactly the opposite.
Treatment protocols aren't divine edicts. They can be wrong. The medical community is as susceptible as any to groupthink and being taken in by the current culture milieu, as well as being influenced by moneyed interests.
As recently as ten years ago, with DSM-5, gender dysphoria was classified a mental illness, much like how anorexia is still classified as one. It's only very recently that with the former we started to take the (mentally unwell) patient's word over evidence.
Doctors used to say that cigarettes were good for you. I suspect that we'll look back at gender-affirming care the same way in a few decades.
> Treatment protocols aren't divine edicts. They can be wrong. The medical community is as susceptible as any to groupthink and being taken in by the current culture milieu, as well as being influenced by moneyed interests.
Do your suspicions in this instance merit an intervention in care for other people? At what point do your 'feelings' matter so much that you get to tell other people what to do medically with their own children? Apply this in an inverse fashion -- at what point do other people who suspect doctors are not right get to tell you how to make medical decision regarding your children?
Let's compare how many times Doctors as a group have been wrong about something vs Politicians. Are you still for Politicians making medical decisions for people?
NIMBY is an inherently local problem, and from what I've heard, that is at the heart of SF's issues: "you can't build affordable housing here, that will lower my property values"; "you can't build a big apartment building here, that will destroy the quaint local character".
I'm not saying that's a problem unique to SF, but SF can solve it without fixing the political issues that affect the rest of the country.
I'm in the treasure valley, I came up in the early aughts and even worked as an interstate mover for a time. I moved lots of Californians into Idaho who sold their house and came up here and bought two or three, or simply vastly upgraded their square footage and amenities. Something is different this time, maybe a critical mass has been reached but the change in culture and politics is apparent. Even in the smaller cities of the valley you see it, you hear it, I see stop white supremacy fliers around my little city. Keep in mind we were marching for Bernie Sanders in Boise not too long ago, he even came and did a rally. Boise and parts of the valley were always leftish, for as long as I've been here but it's different this time. It's more jarring. Again it's probably critical mass of certain ideologies or simply population densities but it's still different and really starting to change the culture across the valley. And not for the better in my opinion, I mentioned the fliers for instance well Hispanic and even African refugee relations have been good here. There's not a problem with white supremacy here but it's now being made manifest by outsiders... Why people can't leave well enough alone I'll never understand.
I have family out in Idaho, and they complain that there a lot of folks from California moving there and screwing up the local politics by voting for policies that broke the state of California. They joke that the first thing people do is change their plates because they don't want anyone to know they're from Cali. I can't blame them, though, because it is an absolute train-wreck of a state whose condition is epitomized by SanFran.