No Longer About Kids: Florida Judge Allows Trans Adult Ban For Large Swaths Of Care
No Longer About Kids: Florida Judge Allows Trans Adult Ban For Large Swaths Of Care
Anti-trans organizations have said that their position against gender affirming care center on "protecting kids." Now, a Florida judge has allowed them to proceed with their next target: trans adults.
Anti-trans organizations have said that their position against gender affirming care center on "protecting kids." Now, a Florida judge has allowed them to proceed with their next target: trans adults.
Several weeks ago, a federal judge in Florida halted a ban on gender-affirming care for transgender youth, declaring it likely unconstitutional. Yet, transgender adults were also heavily impacted by the law: 80% of gender-affirming care providers for trans adults in the state were forced to stop. Consequently, many found themselves forced to flee the state, temporarily or permanently, in order to access care. Those forced to stay clung to the hope that the provisions targeting them might also be overruled. However, those hopes suffered a setback when the 11th Circuit Court determined that discriminating against transgender individuals in healthcare would be allowed, at least in the short term. Relying on this verdict, the Florida Judge Monday declined to block the sections affecting trans adult care. Now, the precedent has been set for adult care bans, a stark contradiction to some anti-trans activists' assurances that their sole aim was to "protect children."
Earlier this year, Florida passed SB254. The bill did not only prohibit gender-affirming care for transgender youth, but also casted stringent requirements for care on trans adults. Specifically, the laws bars nurse practitioners from administering care and mandates that providers distribute inaccurate medical forms, laden with misleading narratives, suggesting treatments are experimental. This was a substantial change, as the vast amount of trans adult care is provided by nurse practitioners. A representative from a clinic in the state, SPEKTRUM Health, estimated that 80% of such care would be affected. Further, the new informed consent form dictates a pre-requisite of "social support" before a trans individual embarks on care, despite many trans adults losing social support from their families after they transition. Though the initial discussion centered on the effect of the bill on trans youth, trans adults across the state suddenly saw their prescriptions dropped by their providers as a result.
read more: https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/no-longer-about-kids-florida-judge
You're viewing part of a thread.
When did Cuba do any if this other than the trans medicine which as I recall was in the mid 1990s.
Cuba being economically socialist has intersectional effects that massively benefit lgbt people in a way capitalism never can or will.
Cuba being authoritarian will mean people will necessarily be less free
What do you mean by authoritarian in this context?
A government that cannot legally be opposed or advocated for the complete replacement of with a non-Marxist system.
So a good thing then? Why would you want capitalism to return?
Hy would creating a system that does not respond to the desires of its population be good? What if it becomes obvious that socialism isn't working or if change is needed? The freedom to replace the government is critical.
Hy would creating a system that does not respond to the desires of its population be good?
How is crushing far right dissent not keeping with the desires of the population?
What if it becomes obvious that socialism isn't working or if change is needed?
Then you modify socialism. As socialists keep doing rather successfully. Socialism is an iterative process after all.
The freedom to replace the government is critical.
If you started advocating the overthrow of your government what would happen to you?
If the people want a different system what is the justice in forcing them to maintain a system that does not work for them? Why should the jackboot of the socialist state crush the desires if the people should they desire something new?
Nothing would happen to me if I advocate for the overthrow if Im not advocating for violence. In the USA there have been communists running that advocated the removal and replacement of the government. There even is a specific right to completely replace the government in the constitution.
If the people want a different system what is the justice in forcing them to maintain a system that does not work for them?
But they don't, so there is justice in maintaining that system against a small amount of dissidents and foreign sabotage.
Nothing would happen to me if I advocate for the overthrow if Im not advocating for violence.
Historically this is how black communists get bullets and white communists get prison cells.
There even is a specific right to completely replace the government in the constitution.
And remind me of the mechanism, and how it doesn't involve forces that are invested in the status quo?
Nothing would happen to me if I advocate for the overthrow if Im not advocating for violence. In the USA there have been communists running that advocated the removal and replacement of the government. There even is a specific right to completely replace the government in the constitution
Pure
As ever, the only right liberals care about is the right to impotently complain.
Cuba is less authoritarian than most Western countries.
No it isn't. You do not have free speech to the same degree for example. You cannot attempt to run for office as a non-socialist. These are critical rights to look at when determining if a nation is authoritarian.
Cuba is one of if not the most authoritarian state in the Western hemisphere.
No it isn't
Yes it is
You do not have free speech to the same degree for example.
How are you quantifying that?
You cannot attempt to run for office as a non-socialist.
The fact that authoritarians can't run for office makes it less authoritarian, not more.
These are critical rights to look at when determining if a nation is authoritarian.
I disagree, I think the rights to food and shelter are far more critical.
Cuba is one of if not the most authoritarian state in the Western hemisphere.
The fact that you cannot oppose the government publicly or suggest replacing it makes it authoritarian. This isn't a debate about the definition of an authoritarian state. You either know it or you don't and right now it's very clear you don't.
The rights to Food and shelter are not relevant to the question of government structure. If Iran fed, sheltered and clothed their population as Islam requires they would not be less authoritarian given they are a theocratic state.