The Supreme Court will hear a case on gender-affirming care in the next term after a flurry of legislation. Lower courts have come to conflicting conclusions when these bans were challenged.
Sure, that seems reasonable to keep away from minors. Like, I couldn’t commit to whether or not I was a “music person” at that age;
People need to understand that not receiving hormone treatment is also a commitment to a gender—one that you don’t identify with. From that perspective, it’s plain stupid to deny children the treatment they need.
To stay with your example, let’s say you are 14, interested in music, but you hate sports. You might not be able to commit to being a “music person” at that age, but it would still be the obvious choice to further explore your interest in music rather than forcing yourself into being sports person instead.
And sure, there are blockers to delay some developments, but I feel like a lot of people don’t recognize that this is not a choice between A and nothing, but between A and B, and one path permanently locks you out of the other.
People need to understand that not receiving hormone treatment is also a commitment to a gender—one that you don’t identify with. From that perspective, it’s plain stupid to deny children the treatment they need.
To stay with your example, let’s say you are 14, interested in music, but you hate sports. You might not be able to commit to being a “music person” at that age, but it would still be the obvious choice to further explore your interest in music rather than forcing yourself into being sports person instead.
And sure, there are blockers to delay some developments, but I feel like a lot of people don’t recognize that this is not a choice between A and nothing, but between A and B, and one path permanently locks you out of the other.