Journal of Other Forum Analysis

[benji]

Love how the first post in that thread is the forum funny man being insane:

happy election year everyone

enjoy the moves to appeal to fascists

Apparently puberty isn't irreversible:

By my knowledge as it pertains to minors the administration approves of self affirming care like puberty blockers and HRT but generally shared the same sentiment as the majority of the trans community when it comes to procedures that are irreversible.

Latest post is a self-diagnosed expert explaining that in fact people do advocate for it and it is happening but it's only the ages Dr. Disrespect would message:

This was a really dumb statement for the Biden admin to make, honestly. Even if it is a general sentiment largely shared by the trans community as a whole. I guess apparently this statement may have come about due to an article the NYT ran earlier last week, per the Parker Molly Bluesky thread? Regardless, it plays straight into a conservative talking point, and causes problems on two fronts.

The first being that "gender affirming surgeries" is a very wide, and covers a lot of procedures. As Lilly-Anne noted above, cisgender minors CAN get a number of these procedures done for many different reasons as needed. Why should these procedures have a hard age limit set simply because someone is trans? Erin Reed, who is going to write a lengthy article on this soon, sums it up best:

There are valid reasons for these procedures for trans minors, and the decisions should be between their families and their doctors. The vagueness of the phrase "gender affirming surgeries" is a very easy path to discrimination. It could also impact folks with intersex conditions as well. It usually does. There are potentially valid reasons for some of these surgeries at 16-17, especially if someone has been on hormones/puberty blockers for several years at this point and has been going through therapy and such.

The second issue is that it causes confusion between gender affirming surgeries and gender affirming care. The latter of which is an umbrella that covers everything from doctors visits, hormones, therapy, and such. We already saw this in this very thread, just a few posts above mine, how the two can be confused with an article from the New York Times. The average person often doesn't know the difference and transphobes rely on this specific distinction to spread misinformation. There was no reason for the presidential administration to hand them a free transphobic talking point. None at all. Especially because the burden will largely fall on trans people to correct it.

Related, but The New York Times sucks when it comes to coverage of trans people and transgender issues. So much so that even Wikipedia has a section on how transphobic they are. Two sections, in fact.