I signed it, puberty blockers existed so I guess some conditions require them though I wasn’t aware of, and I don’t think they are many cases. Now considering the story of medicine and health care in this country and the experiments that have happening since the 1920 or before with eugenics an all that, I would be surprised that puberty blockers exist since a long time ago as used in experiments. Now that the health industry doesn’t cure anymore but do “ health management “ I don’t know if you notice the change of wording, we have to realize that health will be focus is drugs only approach or surgeries. I am a person who always want to know the origen, source or cause of everything so it would be interesting to know why there are children with early puberty, are we talking under 10 years old I presume because 10 and up I would not consider it. Now there are studies that show that many cities and town waters have hormonal residual from the women who pee them through the use of contraceptives drugs as the pill and that modified the environment and that’s the reason we have so many filters in our homes but still some are consumed by the general population specially towns they don’t have a good filtering water processing or have old systems. We are all connected so everything affect everything, masculinity and male hormones also have been down the last decades so I wonder if there’s a coincidence.
I mean regardless of views on medicalizing trans-identified kids, & ignoring the implications this has for government control of medical care in general, this is dangerous because it affects children with conditions like precocious puberty, who NEED puberty blockers and are in fact the majority of children being prescribed them. There are better ways to voice your displeasure & concern than endangering these kids.
The petition calls specifically for banning puberty blockers to treat gender dysphoria -- a purpose for which they were never intended nor studied. The drugs would still legally be available for treating precocious puberty.
Maybe we should rewrite the petition with stronger words. We should condemn the administration’s past support of the cult and its failure to support the American family. We should insist that he rescind those evil proclamations and EOs he has signed. If we are going to do this, let’s go full tilt.
And, why couldn't Genspect and similar organizations like Do No Harm focus some of their resources on helping establish trials of alternative, psychological treatments for kids with gender issues? Surely a state like Missouri could find a site to get something like that off the ground. And then you'll have an effective alternative to offer to the kids and parents who need help, which currently there really isn't an established, proven alternative treatment. Because even if the president were to ban the prescription of puberty blockers for trans identifying kids, it's only going to create a larger and more dangerous black market for these meds since all of them are legally prescribed for other conditions. You are going to see kids buying what they think are blockers online from foreign or illicit domestic suppliers, and some of those kids are going to end up with fentanyl or something else that's not what they ordered. We need to attack the demand and not just constrict supply. As we've seen in the opioid epidemic, merely limiting supply is pretty much impossible and also entirely ineffective in reducing the problem and preventing morbidity and mortality. If kids are going online to get binders behind parents' backs, what makes anyone think they won't do the same to get meds?
Medical trials are expensive to run and need to follow a strict methodology for the results to be valid. You don't just start one at the grassroots level. It has to have funding, and at least a portion of that usually comes from the federal government. The pharmaceutical companies or the likes of the Trevor Project sure aren't going to fund this. (Although we should ask, "what are they afraid of?").
And research studies take YEARS. To know the long-term harms or benefits of a treatment, people undergoing treatment must be studied long-term. Meanwhile, thousands more kids will begin taking harmful puberty blockers.
No liberal university is going to take on a study that might find counseling is better for gender dysphoria than medicalization. That would be political dynamite. And no study results from any conservative-leaning university would ever be embraced -- the transmaniac mob would label that study as biased.
This study would likely need to be an NIH study. And even then, it will be susceptible to political bias, because the issue itself is so highly politicized.
I specifically was not talking about drug trials. Other than that, you raise some very valid points, but are you really suggesting that we simply ignore all these kids? Or that we give parents no alternative treatments to seek out, so they have to rely on what sounds good from a therapist as they seek services for these kids who often are very troubled? If we really are serious about this being a problem then we need to work to find a real solution. Not just ban medical treatment and assume the kids will straighten out on their own.
Psychology studies vary in expense. In the beginning, smaller, less expensive studies will probably be necessary since to my knowledge (someone please correct me if I'm wrong) there is pretty minimal work in this area that's in any way suited for the current patient cohort. It wouldn't make any sense to begin a large study until there has been some success with small ones. And I actually believe that it would be hard but not impossible to get grants, including but not limited to from the NIH (which funds far more studies than it runs itself), to study this issue. I also think, though of course we can't know for sure, that it is a much more likely outcome and thus a better use of resources to push for than a petition seeking an executive order from Biden. And such an order would have a better chance of succeeding-though still pretty infinitesimal-if there is an alternative treatment, rather than saying "please ban this treatment because it has no evidence of success, and we will take this very troubled population and treat them using... Stuff that individual therapists think might probably work?" Moreover, while most studies do end up with government grants as at least partial funding, it isn't necessary. Surely there are some donors or organizations with deep pockets who would be very interested in helping, either because they really care for these kids or because they just are adamantly against medicalization? If there aren't, that doesn't bode well for the success of the cause overall, so perhaps Genspect and others could focus on cultivating more support.
In terms of finding University support, remember that state universities are often among the most prolific research universities in the area overall. The state government ultimately does have at least some control over their public universities, especially in Florida which is consolidating control of higher education with the executive branch. And I suspect, though haven't personally asked him, that Ron DeSantis actually would love to be able to brag that he helped establish the first proven psychological treatment for these kids in the US. Missouri would be another possibility given how active their AG, legislature and governor have been in opposing medical treatment. There are paths here, and I feel it's vital that we pursue them. If not, even if a complete federal ban succeeds, it will leave a vacuum that will leave thousands of very troubled kids and families with next to nothing. Kind of like what GC parents have now. The kids who have the resources to do so will likely seek black market meds, as I said before, but even the ones who do not will be left with essentially no support.
There is currently a great deal of difficulty for most GC parents to find trustworthy therapists for their kids. I strongly feel that while many will be philosophically opposed to GC treatments no matter what, another large number will be quite willing to try psychotherapy on this population IF there is an evidence base for one or more particular treatment methods. Obviously no one can accurately predict exactly how things like that will unfold, but that's my suspicion. My even stronger suspicion is that the chances of improving access to skilled therapy for these kids will be pretty low until there is such evidence.
What did "all these kids" do before puberty blockers began to be used for gender dysphoria, within just the last couple of decades?
Such kids barely existed before then, is the truth of it. Prior to trans-mania taking hold, gender dysphoria was extremely rare, affected mostly male children, began in early childhood (not adolescence), and -- EVEN THEN -- some 70-80% of cases resolved on their own at puberty.
As hundreds of parents here on P.I.T.T. would attest, the young people declaring a trans identity today are doing so out of influence, not biology. Why would we give body-harming, brain-harming, untested drugs to such kids when there is nothing medically wrong with them?
And even in the rare cases where a child has innate gender dysphoria, why give drugs to suppress puberty, when going through natural puberty is the thing most likely to cure the dysphoria?
I agree about the shortage of therapists who aren't affirmation-only. But starting your child on drugs that will only make things worse because you can't find a therapist and just want to "do something" is hardly a solution!
Any gender-critical study coming out of DeSantis's Florida would be scoffed at and given no credence. Likewise, any study funded by conservative groups would be considered suspect from the start.
Most of the state universities are pretty well captured, aren't they? Sadly, I can't see them doing research that would go against the affirmation-only narrative.
Perhaps I should have been more explicit: my serious misgivings about this specific "solution" are in no way an endorsement of the use of puberty blockers for children with gender dysphoria. (I also, for example, don't approve of the use of Viagra for children without certain heart conditions for which it's life saving, but I'm not going to petition the President to regulate that because it's not his role).
Yes, there are always going to be providers and parents who outright reject any research supporting an alternative to meds. But there are also some in both groups who are currently very vocal about the need for alternatives and would welcome such research, no matter where it came from, so long as it was a well-designed study. My impression from reading on the subject (including from numerous posts here) is that there is also a large middle group, that would be willing to entertain alternatives, at least for some patients or as the first option. Professionals who currently feel afraid to speak up or to or provide other treatments might be more willing to do so, at least in some cases, if there was a researched and effective psychotherapy technique to use for this population. And I still say, it can't be any less well-regarded or less credible than no studies at all, which is darn close to what we currently have.
Yes, the gender trend is new in the past 10-ish years. Anorexia, bulimia, and cutting were far less common before the 90s. But they haven't gone anywhere and are actually increasing despite having never been encouraged by professionals, though there have always been large online communities dedicated to encouraging the behaviors by peers. Tics, DID and sometimes autism have become "popular" for some social circles more recently, around the same time frame as gender stuff. The kids who are susceptible to these trends often share certain traits, regardless of the specific disorder-trend they fall into. If gender dysphoria fades to the background for any reason, it's not going to go quickly and the kids already affected will likely remain so for some time. And, something else is going to fill the vacuum unless we find a way to help this "type" of could better navigate the social minefields of junior high, high school, and the Internet. Currently, there are established treatments for eating disorders and cutting, but nothing for these types of kids before they become clinically diagnosable. There's not even any evidence-based advice for their parents on how to help them based on their susceptibility to these types of problems.
Even if medical transition is outlawed worldwide tomorrow, you have a lot of confused and hurting people who need help now. And there will be a new problem with many of the same "roots" very soon, and that will probably require treatment using techniques that are similar in many ways to those that work with the ROGD types. I'm way too old to have seen the gender trend in school, but I did see eating disorders, for example, and I do know nearly a dozen classmates of mine who, decades later, either still have the symptoms of the disorders, or still deal with the physical fallout-or both. And as I said, eating disorders were never affirmed by authority figures. But, while many people did get better with time and various other interventions, there is a significant percentage who did not, or who already had significant permanent complications when they did. I can't imagine gender dysphoria would be different, though of course none of us will know until it happens.
Sharing your stories and commenting on Substack is not enough. Unless everyone rises and finds the courage to speak out, the harms to children and youth will continue.
This seems like the wrong path to take. If we start the slippery slope of allowing politicians to dictate which medical treatments are "too risky" or "not beneficial enough," that is going to have massive and destructive implications. I believe the only other condition in which the government-state or federal-has issued blanket bans on treatment like this is abortion. And we see how that is playing out. It's going in a very similar direction as this issue is headed now that state legislatures and governors are involved. You have some states banning it completely, other states requiring that providers and parents allow it.
Not to mention, political leaders change so quickly that this type of strategy is going to make health care regulation as unpredictable and fraught as our federal budget is currently. You could have one administration ban puberty blockers nationwide, then less than 4 years later the next requires they be provided and fully paid for nationwide, and so on. And once the door is open for politicians to begin regulating medical practice-and I fear it's already been opened a crack with abortion and now trans kids-who is to say where it will stop? We could, for example, see a president who decides that after one narcotic overdose, or one suicide attempt, further overdoses or attempts will not be treated. This was actually proposed in an Ohio town some years back, to limit overdose treatments to three times per person, and on the fourth we let them die in the street. It never passed beyond a statement from one politician, but when you allow the president to begin dictating medical practice for the whole country, it's plausible. I mean, people flipped out a decade ago when the Affordable Care Act proposed care planning meetings for elderly and/or terminally ill patients-just meetings, between the patient, caregiver(s), and professionals involved. And people began yelling about how we couldn't allow the government to dictate when to "pull the plug on Grandma." But that kind of thing is precisely what could take place if we don't keep medical decisions between the patient, their legal guardian if applicable, and their provider.
There are many ways to regulate medical practice that don't involve having individuals with no medical training issuing blanket bans on treatments because they were lobbied hard enough. What can't Genspect and other organizations with money and some infrastructure focus their resources on the established pathways for regulating practice? Especially considering this effort is highly unlikely to go anywhere and is therefore almost certainly a waste of resources.
Minor children are being given body-harming drugs they CANNOT consent to, for a condition that is mental, not physical. Government intervention is warranted here because minors are involved.
Except that minor children are given drugs for mental conditions every day, by the million. Some of which cause things like diabetes, heart disease, obesity, cognitive problems, high propensity for addiction, and sexual dysfunction. And I'm talking only about antidepressants, antipsychotics, and ADHD stimulant meds here, not trans meds. And many more millions of minors get meds every day that they cannot consent to. In fact, by definition, minors under the age of 13 cannot consent to any medical treatment (at least in the vast majority of states) and those 13-17 can only consent to reproductive and limited psychiatric care and only in certain states. Then there are adults who are temporarily incapacitated (in a decision-making sense) or permanently incompetent. They, too, receive meds, have surgeries and so on that they by definition cannot consent to.
We actually already have a pretty solid solution for that issue: legal guardians. Parents, power of attorney or health care proxy, conservators, rarely the courts, etc. Their job, in whole or in part depending on the specific role, is to consider the pros and cons and make a decision in the best interest of the child. So this actually isn't a case at all where the government needs to be involved because minors are involved and there are severe side effects and it is a mental condition, because that is not unique to gender dysphoria and none of those are new problems in medicine, including pediatrics. What you are really arguing is that, in the case of gender dysphoria and only gender dysphoria, parents-ALL parents, not just a few-cannot be trusted to decide things in the best interest of their own children, and that the President, whomever it may be at any given time, is better suited to making a blanket decision that will be better for all the children of America than decisions made by their own parents. But only on this particular issue. For everything else, these parents who apparently can't be trusted to care about their kids, listen to Doctors, seek second opinions, or research the child's condition when it's gender dysphoria can totally make every other decision, medical or otherwise, in the best interest of their children. In fact it's a well-established constitutional right for parents to direct the medical care, and all care, of their children unless there is a specific, imminent threat to life or limb OR specific laws about abuse or neglect have been broken. Parents are even allowed to refuse treatment for cancer in favor of herbal compresses and prayer to their favorite tree in their backyard, and it can be very difficult to get an order for the state to take medical custody until there is proof that the child's condition is declining and there is more than a theoretical risk to health.
So I guess I'm curious: what, in your mind, distinguishes this issue with something like that, or even with a parent who decides (as many do every day) to give their 8yo an atypical antipsychotic for presumed childhood bipolar disorder manifesting in various behavioral issues? (See the list of side effects in the beginning of my post; all except the risk of addiction apply to these meds and many are permanent even if the med is stopped.) And second, do you REALLY want to give the President the power to supersede parental judgement for their children so easily based on the child's diagnosis? Because puberty blockers are both approved and effective for other conditions like precocious puberty or certain cancers, so this is essentially deciding parents can consent to the same drug if the child has one condition but not if they have another. You really think that's a good idea? You really don't think that will be abused, and probably pretty soon?
Not to mention, given the long history of Supreme Court deference to the rights of parents, I personally think it's highly unlikely that a blanket removal of parental rights to give consent to an approved drug would stand. But honestly, that's really not the main issue here. It's just a major change in course of medical regulation as well as parents' rights, and it's a pretty frightening executive overreach.
Sometimes the end doesn't justify the means, but this is not the case. There is a clear medical harm going on right now which should be stopped. It's more important than theoretical "what ifs" which may well never materialize. The slope is not THAT slippery. I think we as a society can evaluate one issue at a time and not worry about how it may hypothetically lead to another issue. We will deal with other issues as they arise.
There IS clear medical harm being done.....but having the federal government dictate by EO is not the way to go. The medical community needs to take a stand on this....period. Lobotomies were discontinued due to poor results (and the rise of psychiatric pharmaceuticals) and not because the federal government stepped in. Thalidomide was discontinued when the results were malformed children. We can't EO our way out of this medical scandal. Medical and Psychiatric physicians will need to take the lead on this.
Unlike Thalidomide, trans medicine is highly political. With Thalidomide doctors and journalists were not afraid to speak up about the harm. The reason doctors are not speaking up now is because they are afraid. It makes more sense to involve politicians when the medical scandal is political / ideological in nature. It's sort of a unique scandal , it's unprecedented so we may need different solutions than with previous ones, no? Of course ideally it should come from the medical community, I would LOVE that, but I am not optimistic that it will.
I agree, and I don’t expect to see an EO, but I signed because the President needs to know many of his normal, nice, liberal supporters are very exercised about this issue. It is our kids who are being harmed.
You can do that another way....register to vote as an Independent! The President really has no say in any of this. Legislation gets codified by Congress and he just signs....period.....that's why we don't have decent and sane abortion access nationwide. The GOP and DNC are crapping their pants right now because we are all leaving in droves and signing on as "I". We haven't been able vote our way out of making politicians listen to "We the People" so "We" are sending them a message loud and clear......we don't want to play in your tent anymore!
You may be right. No one can know what will happen until it does. But, do consider that if we allow presidents to begin dictating medical treatment with executive orders, it's not at all far-fetched that a subsequent administration could not only undo a ban but could actually institute a medicalization mandate of sorts-ie, an order that refusal to medicate is abuse until proven otherwise.
Not to mention that medical practice regulation has generally been up to states, AND that even this highly conservative Supreme Court appeared highly skeptical of the lawsuit attempting to ban one of the two pills used in medical abortion in the US for reasons like those I outlined. Essentially, they expressed deep reservations about anyone other than medical experts dictating medical care and making binding regulations based on medication or treatment safety. Assuming their opinion follows their questioning (which IS an assumption and certainly not guaranteed) any executive order would. be likely presumed to be illegal under that precedent.
One more point: even in Europe, blockers are only banned under the national health systems of those countries. Meaning, first, that the bans were put in place by the authorities charged with regulating medical practice as opposed to political figures. But also, in England and I believe the other countries as well (unless someone has other information?) it is not actually illegal to take or prescribe these meds. Rather, the national health care system won't do it, nor will they pay for it. People can still pay out of pocket for private providers or foreign prescribers and suppliers. An executive order here would be an even more conservative and unprecedented move worldwide. Not necessarily a bad thing, but when we bypass the established regulatory system for the first time in the world, I personally think that the what-ifs are very important to consider. I can understand how someone with a child ready to go on blockers right now might disagree.
I agree there is harm being done and respect your opinion. I simply disagree and, regardless of that, I think this is highly impractical, unlikely to succeed and a poor use of resources.
Here are two consecutive proclamations, signed by JB.
The EO shown third is just one of many that effectively makes it a potential crime to protect children from the transgender scourge. Google and you will find even more than that.
Considering that he has issued two consecutive executive orders conferring special rights for transgenderism; and specifically honoring parents to “affirm,” isn’t this a futile petition? If someone can give me a good reason to sign, I will.
As all politicians, he will do whatever he (or whoever pushes his strings) thinks will get him re-elected. Biden administration might decide that far left is not a horse to bet on (from what I gather, many of the far left young people won't vote because it's not radical enough ... or something like that). So, if his base is going to be somewhat more moderate people .... well, he may be advised that signing this petition will increase his chances. Hence, this petition may only be successful if it gets a lot of signatures.
This petition has zero chance of success. Our president is clearly in the early-middle stage of dementia and is obviously not the one controlling what is going on. Whoever is controlling is rightfully concerned about his re-election chances and pandering to the far left. There is zero chance his minders will have him do or say anything to upset the trans agenda.
It could make our clueless President aware of just how many Americans are against this, and it's NOT because they are "bigots" and "transphobes" but because they care about children's health. I doubt Biden, himself, knows any more than what the activists are promoting to his administration.
Not pushing back is partially how we got to this place to begin with. This cult moved into our country and stole our children like thieves in the night. It came in under the radar and nobody was protesting it because nobody really knew about it. If we don’t push back now that we are fully aware, when will we do it?
I will sign. I doubt Biden will do anything. The entire Democrat party and a good percentage of the Republican party are hell bent on destroying the nuclear family and part of that agenda is destroying as many children as they can.
Use your pen to fill in the little box next to Donald Trump's name this November then use it again to send him this same petition.
https://www.mayo.edu/research/clinical-trials/diseases-conditions/gender-dysphoria/
Shared on Facebook and signed petition.
I signed it, puberty blockers existed so I guess some conditions require them though I wasn’t aware of, and I don’t think they are many cases. Now considering the story of medicine and health care in this country and the experiments that have happening since the 1920 or before with eugenics an all that, I would be surprised that puberty blockers exist since a long time ago as used in experiments. Now that the health industry doesn’t cure anymore but do “ health management “ I don’t know if you notice the change of wording, we have to realize that health will be focus is drugs only approach or surgeries. I am a person who always want to know the origen, source or cause of everything so it would be interesting to know why there are children with early puberty, are we talking under 10 years old I presume because 10 and up I would not consider it. Now there are studies that show that many cities and town waters have hormonal residual from the women who pee them through the use of contraceptives drugs as the pill and that modified the environment and that’s the reason we have so many filters in our homes but still some are consumed by the general population specially towns they don’t have a good filtering water processing or have old systems. We are all connected so everything affect everything, masculinity and male hormones also have been down the last decades so I wonder if there’s a coincidence.
I mean regardless of views on medicalizing trans-identified kids, & ignoring the implications this has for government control of medical care in general, this is dangerous because it affects children with conditions like precocious puberty, who NEED puberty blockers and are in fact the majority of children being prescribed them. There are better ways to voice your displeasure & concern than endangering these kids.
The petition calls specifically for banning puberty blockers to treat gender dysphoria -- a purpose for which they were never intended nor studied. The drugs would still legally be available for treating precocious puberty.
Oh I see. Yeah that clarity in language is super important
Maybe we should rewrite the petition with stronger words. We should condemn the administration’s past support of the cult and its failure to support the American family. We should insist that he rescind those evil proclamations and EOs he has signed. If we are going to do this, let’s go full tilt.
And, why couldn't Genspect and similar organizations like Do No Harm focus some of their resources on helping establish trials of alternative, psychological treatments for kids with gender issues? Surely a state like Missouri could find a site to get something like that off the ground. And then you'll have an effective alternative to offer to the kids and parents who need help, which currently there really isn't an established, proven alternative treatment. Because even if the president were to ban the prescription of puberty blockers for trans identifying kids, it's only going to create a larger and more dangerous black market for these meds since all of them are legally prescribed for other conditions. You are going to see kids buying what they think are blockers online from foreign or illicit domestic suppliers, and some of those kids are going to end up with fentanyl or something else that's not what they ordered. We need to attack the demand and not just constrict supply. As we've seen in the opioid epidemic, merely limiting supply is pretty much impossible and also entirely ineffective in reducing the problem and preventing morbidity and mortality. If kids are going online to get binders behind parents' backs, what makes anyone think they won't do the same to get meds?
Medical trials are expensive to run and need to follow a strict methodology for the results to be valid. You don't just start one at the grassroots level. It has to have funding, and at least a portion of that usually comes from the federal government. The pharmaceutical companies or the likes of the Trevor Project sure aren't going to fund this. (Although we should ask, "what are they afraid of?").
And research studies take YEARS. To know the long-term harms or benefits of a treatment, people undergoing treatment must be studied long-term. Meanwhile, thousands more kids will begin taking harmful puberty blockers.
No liberal university is going to take on a study that might find counseling is better for gender dysphoria than medicalization. That would be political dynamite. And no study results from any conservative-leaning university would ever be embraced -- the transmaniac mob would label that study as biased.
This study would likely need to be an NIH study. And even then, it will be susceptible to political bias, because the issue itself is so highly politicized.
I specifically was not talking about drug trials. Other than that, you raise some very valid points, but are you really suggesting that we simply ignore all these kids? Or that we give parents no alternative treatments to seek out, so they have to rely on what sounds good from a therapist as they seek services for these kids who often are very troubled? If we really are serious about this being a problem then we need to work to find a real solution. Not just ban medical treatment and assume the kids will straighten out on their own.
Psychology studies vary in expense. In the beginning, smaller, less expensive studies will probably be necessary since to my knowledge (someone please correct me if I'm wrong) there is pretty minimal work in this area that's in any way suited for the current patient cohort. It wouldn't make any sense to begin a large study until there has been some success with small ones. And I actually believe that it would be hard but not impossible to get grants, including but not limited to from the NIH (which funds far more studies than it runs itself), to study this issue. I also think, though of course we can't know for sure, that it is a much more likely outcome and thus a better use of resources to push for than a petition seeking an executive order from Biden. And such an order would have a better chance of succeeding-though still pretty infinitesimal-if there is an alternative treatment, rather than saying "please ban this treatment because it has no evidence of success, and we will take this very troubled population and treat them using... Stuff that individual therapists think might probably work?" Moreover, while most studies do end up with government grants as at least partial funding, it isn't necessary. Surely there are some donors or organizations with deep pockets who would be very interested in helping, either because they really care for these kids or because they just are adamantly against medicalization? If there aren't, that doesn't bode well for the success of the cause overall, so perhaps Genspect and others could focus on cultivating more support.
In terms of finding University support, remember that state universities are often among the most prolific research universities in the area overall. The state government ultimately does have at least some control over their public universities, especially in Florida which is consolidating control of higher education with the executive branch. And I suspect, though haven't personally asked him, that Ron DeSantis actually would love to be able to brag that he helped establish the first proven psychological treatment for these kids in the US. Missouri would be another possibility given how active their AG, legislature and governor have been in opposing medical treatment. There are paths here, and I feel it's vital that we pursue them. If not, even if a complete federal ban succeeds, it will leave a vacuum that will leave thousands of very troubled kids and families with next to nothing. Kind of like what GC parents have now. The kids who have the resources to do so will likely seek black market meds, as I said before, but even the ones who do not will be left with essentially no support.
There is currently a great deal of difficulty for most GC parents to find trustworthy therapists for their kids. I strongly feel that while many will be philosophically opposed to GC treatments no matter what, another large number will be quite willing to try psychotherapy on this population IF there is an evidence base for one or more particular treatment methods. Obviously no one can accurately predict exactly how things like that will unfold, but that's my suspicion. My even stronger suspicion is that the chances of improving access to skilled therapy for these kids will be pretty low until there is such evidence.
What did "all these kids" do before puberty blockers began to be used for gender dysphoria, within just the last couple of decades?
Such kids barely existed before then, is the truth of it. Prior to trans-mania taking hold, gender dysphoria was extremely rare, affected mostly male children, began in early childhood (not adolescence), and -- EVEN THEN -- some 70-80% of cases resolved on their own at puberty.
As hundreds of parents here on P.I.T.T. would attest, the young people declaring a trans identity today are doing so out of influence, not biology. Why would we give body-harming, brain-harming, untested drugs to such kids when there is nothing medically wrong with them?
And even in the rare cases where a child has innate gender dysphoria, why give drugs to suppress puberty, when going through natural puberty is the thing most likely to cure the dysphoria?
I agree about the shortage of therapists who aren't affirmation-only. But starting your child on drugs that will only make things worse because you can't find a therapist and just want to "do something" is hardly a solution!
Any gender-critical study coming out of DeSantis's Florida would be scoffed at and given no credence. Likewise, any study funded by conservative groups would be considered suspect from the start.
Most of the state universities are pretty well captured, aren't they? Sadly, I can't see them doing research that would go against the affirmation-only narrative.
Perhaps I should have been more explicit: my serious misgivings about this specific "solution" are in no way an endorsement of the use of puberty blockers for children with gender dysphoria. (I also, for example, don't approve of the use of Viagra for children without certain heart conditions for which it's life saving, but I'm not going to petition the President to regulate that because it's not his role).
Yes, there are always going to be providers and parents who outright reject any research supporting an alternative to meds. But there are also some in both groups who are currently very vocal about the need for alternatives and would welcome such research, no matter where it came from, so long as it was a well-designed study. My impression from reading on the subject (including from numerous posts here) is that there is also a large middle group, that would be willing to entertain alternatives, at least for some patients or as the first option. Professionals who currently feel afraid to speak up or to or provide other treatments might be more willing to do so, at least in some cases, if there was a researched and effective psychotherapy technique to use for this population. And I still say, it can't be any less well-regarded or less credible than no studies at all, which is darn close to what we currently have.
Yes, the gender trend is new in the past 10-ish years. Anorexia, bulimia, and cutting were far less common before the 90s. But they haven't gone anywhere and are actually increasing despite having never been encouraged by professionals, though there have always been large online communities dedicated to encouraging the behaviors by peers. Tics, DID and sometimes autism have become "popular" for some social circles more recently, around the same time frame as gender stuff. The kids who are susceptible to these trends often share certain traits, regardless of the specific disorder-trend they fall into. If gender dysphoria fades to the background for any reason, it's not going to go quickly and the kids already affected will likely remain so for some time. And, something else is going to fill the vacuum unless we find a way to help this "type" of could better navigate the social minefields of junior high, high school, and the Internet. Currently, there are established treatments for eating disorders and cutting, but nothing for these types of kids before they become clinically diagnosable. There's not even any evidence-based advice for their parents on how to help them based on their susceptibility to these types of problems.
Even if medical transition is outlawed worldwide tomorrow, you have a lot of confused and hurting people who need help now. And there will be a new problem with many of the same "roots" very soon, and that will probably require treatment using techniques that are similar in many ways to those that work with the ROGD types. I'm way too old to have seen the gender trend in school, but I did see eating disorders, for example, and I do know nearly a dozen classmates of mine who, decades later, either still have the symptoms of the disorders, or still deal with the physical fallout-or both. And as I said, eating disorders were never affirmed by authority figures. But, while many people did get better with time and various other interventions, there is a significant percentage who did not, or who already had significant permanent complications when they did. I can't imagine gender dysphoria would be different, though of course none of us will know until it happens.
Sharing your stories and commenting on Substack is not enough. Unless everyone rises and finds the courage to speak out, the harms to children and youth will continue.
This seems like the wrong path to take. If we start the slippery slope of allowing politicians to dictate which medical treatments are "too risky" or "not beneficial enough," that is going to have massive and destructive implications. I believe the only other condition in which the government-state or federal-has issued blanket bans on treatment like this is abortion. And we see how that is playing out. It's going in a very similar direction as this issue is headed now that state legislatures and governors are involved. You have some states banning it completely, other states requiring that providers and parents allow it.
Not to mention, political leaders change so quickly that this type of strategy is going to make health care regulation as unpredictable and fraught as our federal budget is currently. You could have one administration ban puberty blockers nationwide, then less than 4 years later the next requires they be provided and fully paid for nationwide, and so on. And once the door is open for politicians to begin regulating medical practice-and I fear it's already been opened a crack with abortion and now trans kids-who is to say where it will stop? We could, for example, see a president who decides that after one narcotic overdose, or one suicide attempt, further overdoses or attempts will not be treated. This was actually proposed in an Ohio town some years back, to limit overdose treatments to three times per person, and on the fourth we let them die in the street. It never passed beyond a statement from one politician, but when you allow the president to begin dictating medical practice for the whole country, it's plausible. I mean, people flipped out a decade ago when the Affordable Care Act proposed care planning meetings for elderly and/or terminally ill patients-just meetings, between the patient, caregiver(s), and professionals involved. And people began yelling about how we couldn't allow the government to dictate when to "pull the plug on Grandma." But that kind of thing is precisely what could take place if we don't keep medical decisions between the patient, their legal guardian if applicable, and their provider.
There are many ways to regulate medical practice that don't involve having individuals with no medical training issuing blanket bans on treatments because they were lobbied hard enough. What can't Genspect and other organizations with money and some infrastructure focus their resources on the established pathways for regulating practice? Especially considering this effort is highly unlikely to go anywhere and is therefore almost certainly a waste of resources.
Sometimes the ends do not justify the means.
Minor children are being given body-harming drugs they CANNOT consent to, for a condition that is mental, not physical. Government intervention is warranted here because minors are involved.
Except that minor children are given drugs for mental conditions every day, by the million. Some of which cause things like diabetes, heart disease, obesity, cognitive problems, high propensity for addiction, and sexual dysfunction. And I'm talking only about antidepressants, antipsychotics, and ADHD stimulant meds here, not trans meds. And many more millions of minors get meds every day that they cannot consent to. In fact, by definition, minors under the age of 13 cannot consent to any medical treatment (at least in the vast majority of states) and those 13-17 can only consent to reproductive and limited psychiatric care and only in certain states. Then there are adults who are temporarily incapacitated (in a decision-making sense) or permanently incompetent. They, too, receive meds, have surgeries and so on that they by definition cannot consent to.
We actually already have a pretty solid solution for that issue: legal guardians. Parents, power of attorney or health care proxy, conservators, rarely the courts, etc. Their job, in whole or in part depending on the specific role, is to consider the pros and cons and make a decision in the best interest of the child. So this actually isn't a case at all where the government needs to be involved because minors are involved and there are severe side effects and it is a mental condition, because that is not unique to gender dysphoria and none of those are new problems in medicine, including pediatrics. What you are really arguing is that, in the case of gender dysphoria and only gender dysphoria, parents-ALL parents, not just a few-cannot be trusted to decide things in the best interest of their own children, and that the President, whomever it may be at any given time, is better suited to making a blanket decision that will be better for all the children of America than decisions made by their own parents. But only on this particular issue. For everything else, these parents who apparently can't be trusted to care about their kids, listen to Doctors, seek second opinions, or research the child's condition when it's gender dysphoria can totally make every other decision, medical or otherwise, in the best interest of their children. In fact it's a well-established constitutional right for parents to direct the medical care, and all care, of their children unless there is a specific, imminent threat to life or limb OR specific laws about abuse or neglect have been broken. Parents are even allowed to refuse treatment for cancer in favor of herbal compresses and prayer to their favorite tree in their backyard, and it can be very difficult to get an order for the state to take medical custody until there is proof that the child's condition is declining and there is more than a theoretical risk to health.
So I guess I'm curious: what, in your mind, distinguishes this issue with something like that, or even with a parent who decides (as many do every day) to give their 8yo an atypical antipsychotic for presumed childhood bipolar disorder manifesting in various behavioral issues? (See the list of side effects in the beginning of my post; all except the risk of addiction apply to these meds and many are permanent even if the med is stopped.) And second, do you REALLY want to give the President the power to supersede parental judgement for their children so easily based on the child's diagnosis? Because puberty blockers are both approved and effective for other conditions like precocious puberty or certain cancers, so this is essentially deciding parents can consent to the same drug if the child has one condition but not if they have another. You really think that's a good idea? You really don't think that will be abused, and probably pretty soon?
Not to mention, given the long history of Supreme Court deference to the rights of parents, I personally think it's highly unlikely that a blanket removal of parental rights to give consent to an approved drug would stand. But honestly, that's really not the main issue here. It's just a major change in course of medical regulation as well as parents' rights, and it's a pretty frightening executive overreach.
We have a
Sometimes the end doesn't justify the means, but this is not the case. There is a clear medical harm going on right now which should be stopped. It's more important than theoretical "what ifs" which may well never materialize. The slope is not THAT slippery. I think we as a society can evaluate one issue at a time and not worry about how it may hypothetically lead to another issue. We will deal with other issues as they arise.
There IS clear medical harm being done.....but having the federal government dictate by EO is not the way to go. The medical community needs to take a stand on this....period. Lobotomies were discontinued due to poor results (and the rise of psychiatric pharmaceuticals) and not because the federal government stepped in. Thalidomide was discontinued when the results were malformed children. We can't EO our way out of this medical scandal. Medical and Psychiatric physicians will need to take the lead on this.
Unlike Thalidomide, trans medicine is highly political. With Thalidomide doctors and journalists were not afraid to speak up about the harm. The reason doctors are not speaking up now is because they are afraid. It makes more sense to involve politicians when the medical scandal is political / ideological in nature. It's sort of a unique scandal , it's unprecedented so we may need different solutions than with previous ones, no? Of course ideally it should come from the medical community, I would LOVE that, but I am not optimistic that it will.
It would help if the insurance companies would stop funding it as well. Still waiting on results of the current lawsuits.
I agree, and I don’t expect to see an EO, but I signed because the President needs to know many of his normal, nice, liberal supporters are very exercised about this issue. It is our kids who are being harmed.
You can do that another way....register to vote as an Independent! The President really has no say in any of this. Legislation gets codified by Congress and he just signs....period.....that's why we don't have decent and sane abortion access nationwide. The GOP and DNC are crapping their pants right now because we are all leaving in droves and signing on as "I". We haven't been able vote our way out of making politicians listen to "We the People" so "We" are sending them a message loud and clear......we don't want to play in your tent anymore!
You may be right. No one can know what will happen until it does. But, do consider that if we allow presidents to begin dictating medical treatment with executive orders, it's not at all far-fetched that a subsequent administration could not only undo a ban but could actually institute a medicalization mandate of sorts-ie, an order that refusal to medicate is abuse until proven otherwise.
Not to mention that medical practice regulation has generally been up to states, AND that even this highly conservative Supreme Court appeared highly skeptical of the lawsuit attempting to ban one of the two pills used in medical abortion in the US for reasons like those I outlined. Essentially, they expressed deep reservations about anyone other than medical experts dictating medical care and making binding regulations based on medication or treatment safety. Assuming their opinion follows their questioning (which IS an assumption and certainly not guaranteed) any executive order would. be likely presumed to be illegal under that precedent.
One more point: even in Europe, blockers are only banned under the national health systems of those countries. Meaning, first, that the bans were put in place by the authorities charged with regulating medical practice as opposed to political figures. But also, in England and I believe the other countries as well (unless someone has other information?) it is not actually illegal to take or prescribe these meds. Rather, the national health care system won't do it, nor will they pay for it. People can still pay out of pocket for private providers or foreign prescribers and suppliers. An executive order here would be an even more conservative and unprecedented move worldwide. Not necessarily a bad thing, but when we bypass the established regulatory system for the first time in the world, I personally think that the what-ifs are very important to consider. I can understand how someone with a child ready to go on blockers right now might disagree.
I agree there is harm being done and respect your opinion. I simply disagree and, regardless of that, I think this is highly impractical, unlikely to succeed and a poor use of resources.
I do not believe the POTUS has the power to do that.
Here are two consecutive proclamations, signed by JB.
The EO shown third is just one of many that effectively makes it a potential crime to protect children from the transgender scourge. Google and you will find even more than that.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2022/03/30/a-proclamation-on-transgender-day-of-visibility-2022/#:~:text=BIDEN%20JR.%2C%20President%20of%20the,as%20Transgender%20Day%20of%20Visibility.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2023/03/30/a-proclamation-on-transgender-day-of-visibility/#:~:text=NOW%2C%20THEREFORE%2C%20I%2C%20JOSEPH,as%20Transgender%20Day%20of%20Visibility.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2022/06/15/executive-order-on-advancing-equality-for-lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender-queer-and-intersex-individuals/
He can have the FDA look at this off label use, and he could fire Rachel Levine who promotes their use.
Then tell them.
Considering that he has issued two consecutive executive orders conferring special rights for transgenderism; and specifically honoring parents to “affirm,” isn’t this a futile petition? If someone can give me a good reason to sign, I will.
As all politicians, he will do whatever he (or whoever pushes his strings) thinks will get him re-elected. Biden administration might decide that far left is not a horse to bet on (from what I gather, many of the far left young people won't vote because it's not radical enough ... or something like that). So, if his base is going to be somewhat more moderate people .... well, he may be advised that signing this petition will increase his chances. Hence, this petition may only be successful if it gets a lot of signatures.
This petition has zero chance of success. Our president is clearly in the early-middle stage of dementia and is obviously not the one controlling what is going on. Whoever is controlling is rightfully concerned about his re-election chances and pandering to the far left. There is zero chance his minders will have him do or say anything to upset the trans agenda.
It could make our clueless President aware of just how many Americans are against this, and it's NOT because they are "bigots" and "transphobes" but because they care about children's health. I doubt Biden, himself, knows any more than what the activists are promoting to his administration.
Silence = death
Futile or not, when has it is not been important to speak out for what is right? No civil rights were ever gained through people giving up.
Not pushing back is partially how we got to this place to begin with. This cult moved into our country and stole our children like thieves in the night. It came in under the radar and nobody was protesting it because nobody really knew about it. If we don’t push back now that we are fully aware, when will we do it?
I will sign. I doubt Biden will do anything. The entire Democrat party and a good percentage of the Republican party are hell bent on destroying the nuclear family and part of that agenda is destroying as many children as they can.
Use your pen to fill in the little box next to Donald Trump's name this November then use it again to send him this same petition.
The Democratic Party is just lost on this issue. It’s full blown insane