The Medical Community And Religious Beliefs

Jump to Last Post 1-7 of 7 discussions (82 posts)
  1. Sharlee01 profile image80
    Sharlee01posted 15 months ago

    https://hubstatic.com/16268436_f1024.jpg
    FEDERAL COURTS Published December 10, 2022, 1:10 pm EST
    Federal appeals court bars Biden administration from forcing Catholic groups to provide transgender care.

    This is the second federal appeals court to block the Department of Health and Human Services from using Obamacare to mandate transgender medical care.

    "A federal appeals court on Friday permanently blocked the Biden administration from requiring religious doctors and hospitals to perform transgender medical services that violate their conscience, becoming the second court to do so.

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed a lower court ruling in favor of the plaintiffs in Sisters of Mercy v. Becerra, a case concerning a coalition of Catholic groups who have challenged the Biden administration's attempt to invoke the Affordable Care Act to prohibit doctors and hospitals from discriminating against transgender patients. The Catholic groups, which include hospitals, a university and nuns who run health clinics, say the Biden administration's rule violates their free exercise of religion.

    An August ruling from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals similarly held that the federal government cannot force Christian medical organizations to perform abortions or gender transition surgeries under the Affordable Care Act

    In 2016, the Department of Health and Human Services promulgated a rule implementing the probation of discrimination under Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, also called Obamacare. The rule prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in all health programs and requires doctors and hospitals who receive funding from HHS (including hospitals that accept Medicare or doctors who accept Medicaid) to treat individuals consistent with their gender identity.

    Any doctor or hospital who violates the rule could face severe financial penalties.

    Catholic employers sued, arguing that the government's mandate "forces doctors to perform controversial and sometimes harmful medical procedures" and violates their religious conscience. The lawsuit was joined by the state of North Dakota and the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is representing the plaintiffs, Sisters of Mercy, the University of Mary and SMP Health System.

    On January 21, 2021, U.S. District Court Judge Peter D. Welte ruled in favor of the Catholic groups, blocking the transgender rule from taking effect. Welte, a Trump appointee, also blocked the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) from requiring the Catholic employers to provide insurance coverage for sex-change surgeries or cross-hormone therapies.

    The Biden administration appealed to the Eighth Circuit, but a three-judge panel of Republican appointees upheld the lower court's ruling that "intrusion upon the Catholic Plaintiffs’ exercise of religion is sufficient to show irreparable harm."

    "The federal government has no business forcing doctors to violate their consciences or perform controversial procedures that could permanently harm their patients," said Luke Goodrich, vice president and senior counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. "

    Do you think our federal government should have the right to dictate by law that Christian medical organizations perform abortions or gender transition surgeries under the Affordable Care Act?

    Very simply this question is meant to glean views on Government overreach.

    Whether is it acceptable for a Government to force a Doctor to violate his religious beliefs to perform an ELECTED abortion or any form of transgender medical services? 

    I feel Government has no right to force anyone to do anything that goes against their religious beliefs. What do you think?

    1. Fayetteville Faye profile image59
      Fayetteville Fayeposted 15 months agoin reply to this

      Aren't there already "outs' for this?
      As it stands I see that there are really only a small number of doctors who do these procedures in the entire country. Are folks to have us believe that people are going to their general practitioner asking for this type of surgery and somehow the government is going to force them to do something that is beyond their training , specialty or expertise? Is the implication that I can ask my general practitioner to perform this kind of surgery and he or she would be forced to do so?  I don't know this just isn't making much sense to me.  Only doctors specifically trained and qualified would offer this kind of surgery anyway right?  I mean in reality if I'm looking for cosmetic surgery I don't ask my rheumatologist to do it.  These arguments about the government forcing doctors to do things just doesn't seem realistic to me. I think anyone who wants this type of surgery is going to seek out a doctor who does that type of surgery, why wouldn't they?  Even in terms of abortion, wouldn't patients seek out doctors offering that service?

      1. Sharlee01 profile image80
        Sharlee01posted 15 months agoin reply to this

        "Aren't there already "outs' for this?"

        Yes, thus far we have two courts that have stood to protect the, as you put it "ins and outs of Doctor's rights to refuse to do procedures against their religious beliefs. 

        The Biden administration is seeking to make that impossible.  The Department of Health and Human Services promulgated a rule implementing the probation of discrimination under Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, also called Obamacare. The rule prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in all health programs and requires doctors and hospitals who receive funding from HHS (including hospitals that accept Medicare or doctors who accept Medicaid) to treat individuals consistent with their gender identity. Any doctor or hospital who violates the rule could face severe financial penalties.

        Then why does Government find the need to have such a rule? 

        At any point, I asked direct questions, very straightforward questions. Should not be hard to just answer them. Take them as being hypothetical.

        Do you think our federal government should have the right to dictate by law that Christian medical organizations perform abortions or gender transition surgeries under the Affordable Care Act?

        Very simply this question is meant to glean views on Government overreach.

        Whether is it acceptable for a Government to force a Doctor to violate his religious beliefs to perform an ELECTED abortion or any form of transgender medical services?

        1. Fayetteville Faye profile image59
          Fayetteville Fayeposted 15 months agoin reply to this

          I believe it is already standard accepted practice that a doctor wouldn't have to accept anything beyond their expertise.  Are you saying you really believe that the government would impose upon a general practitioner to engage in a gender transition surgery when that isn't there area of expertise?    You really believe that this is saying the government could force a general practitioner to engage in an abortion when that isn't part of their normal services? This is really just like the Colorado website wedding designer case. If that isn't the service that you offer, there really isn't any recourse for the government to enforce it upon you.
          I really don't understand the logic here whatsoever. If you're seeking a gender reassignment surgery then you would find a doctor who does that. If you're seeking an abortion, you would find a doctor who does that. Who on Earth tries to force a doctor to perform a procedure they don't do?? Obviously these Christian groups that you speak of don't perform any of these procedures. Why would they have patients coming to them?  It's like asking my electrician to perform plumbing work.

          1. Sharlee01 profile image80
            Sharlee01posted 15 months agoin reply to this

            I feel you missed the point of my OP.  I am simply at odds with the Biden administration somewhat as I see it going against our Constitutional rights in regard to religion. Do they have the right to dictate rules or laws that, in my view are unconstitutional?  The Biden administration in my view is making an attempt to dent the Constitution.  I feel the rule that is being disputed in court is government overreach.

            Your common sense points are well taken. But just don't hit on my concern. Which is Government overreach.

            "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech"

            The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual's religious practices.
            https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment

    2. wilderness profile image94
      wildernessposted 15 months agoin reply to this

      no doctor should have to perform an abortion...unless it is to save the life or health of the mother, whereupon any surgeon should be required to do so.

      No doctor should be forced to perform sex change surgery, or hormonal therapy re: sex change.  Both violate their Hippocratic oath.  BUT...any doctor should provide transgender people, who already have had surgery, any and all health services to make them more comfortable.

      (Your insinuation was that no doctor should have to perform surgeries, but at the same time you DO indicate any health services for a transgender.)

      The problem is one already discussed in these forums; do religious beliefs trump the law (particularly discrimination laws) and the answer is that they do not.  Indeed, that is the very reason that the rules about religion were written into the Constitution; to protect someone else from undesirable treatment by religious people demanding they follow religious beliefs not their own.

      1. Sharlee01 profile image80
        Sharlee01posted 15 months agoin reply to this

        "The problem is one already discussed in these forums; do religious beliefs trump the law (particularly discrimination laws) and the answer is that they do not.  Indeed, that is the very reason that the rules about religion were written into the Constitution; to protect someone else from undesirable treatment by religious people demanding they follow religious beliefs not their own."

        It is clear law is a law, and we are expected to abide by our laws.  The rest of your sentiment rings odd to me. In light of what the Constitution clearly says in the First Amendment.

        "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech"

        The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual's religious practices.
        https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment

        It would seem the ruling the Biden administration is fighting for totally goes against one's first amendment right and is unconstitutional. The Federal government should not be dictating laws that infringe on religious rights.

        Yet we have that administration appealing to our courts twice ---   
        This is the second federal appeals court to block the Department of Health and Human Services from using Obamacare to mandate transgender medical care.

        "A federal appeals court on Friday permanently blocked the Biden administration from requiring religious doctors and hospitals to perform transgender medical services that violate their conscience, becoming the second court to do so."

        My point is has this administration overstepped its bounds in regards to dictating its wishes over that of citizens' religious rights, which are protected under the Constitution.?

        This is not the first time the Democrats hope to overstep the Constitution.

        I do realize many Americans feel we should do away with the constitution. However, at this point, we are still respecting it in our courts for the most part.

        1. wilderness profile image94
          wildernessposted 15 months agoin reply to this

          "It would seem the ruling the Biden administration is fighting for totally goes against one's first amendment right and is unconstitutional."

          The problem here is that we know the evils and horrors of discrimination, and that we must make efforts to prevent it from ever happening in our country again.  If that means that the religious must treat others as they do their own congregation, then so be it.  Every time we make a law a small bit of freedom is lost; to lose the freedom to discriminate against other people because we believe God does not approve of their lifestyle is not a large thing to lose. 

          If the religious were losing the ability to worship as they choose it would be different, but they are not.  They are only losing the ability to force their beliefs onto others.

          Even though an atheist I am absolutely firm in promotion of the freedom of religion, to worship and live as religious beliefs dictate...until that belief negatively impacts on others.  We don't allow religions to perform human sacrifice, for instance.  We don't allow abuse of children in God's name.  We don't allow abuse of women or denial of the same rights males have.  And, outside of the home and the church, we don't allow discrimination of others - we are not allowed to demand that others follow our religious beliefs before treating them as equals in all things.

          Credence made a good point about the person denying a marriage license - is it OK for a Muslim in that job to deny a driver's license to women?  Of courses not, and it makes no difference whether it is a govt. job (as in issuing licenses) or private (as in making cakes or websites); once the seller has left the offices of the church and gone public then they must not discriminate based on their religion.

          1. Sharlee01 profile image80
            Sharlee01posted 15 months agoin reply to this

            "The problem here is that we know the evils and horrors of discrimination and that we must make efforts to prevent it from ever happening in our country again."

            This is a wide-open statement. One thought is it fair to discriminate against a Doctor that works for a Hospital that takes Medicare, and medicare with a law that tells them they must if it is in their power to perform or provide a form of healthcare that goes against their religion or beliefs for that matter. You seem to be making a decision n who should be discriminated against.  One or the other...

            You seem to be letting sentiment leak into lawmaking. I tried to put these sentiments aside and ask blunt questions. If I were to share my view, it would be as I said, let's be kind to one another-- that would be the very best scenario.

            " is it OK for a Muslim in that job to deny a driver's license to women? "
            No, she is working under an employer's rules, State Government rules...  She took a job that requires her to follow the rules set by her state government. 

            Do medical centers have set rules in regard to treating gay people, and abortion?  No, they have doctors with specialties, that clearly will provide care without any problem to gays and are on board with doing abortions.
            So, why does the Federal government feel they need to set laws for private hospitals in regard to the treatment of homosexuals and those that desire an abortion? Faye made that point, and it is very much the case there are doc's that are more than willing to give healthcare to gay people. So why do we need the Federal government to make laws that apply to private hospitals and health facilities?   It is mainly the Catholic Hospitals objecting to the Government's overreach.

            I think every comment added great thoughts and shared personal common sense scenarios.  Just did not touch on the Government overreach aspects of the subject, and is the Governments' current battle in court unconstitutional?

            1. wilderness profile image94
              wildernessposted 15 months agoin reply to this

              "You seem to be making a decision n who should be discriminated against.  One or the other"

              Only in that I refuse to allow discrimination and one of the parties wishes to discriminate against people they don't agree with.  I do not apologize for not allowing people to discriminate against others.  If it is important to you to treat others differently according to their religion, then stay at home, behind closed doors, rather than in the public business arena.

              "She took a job that requires her to follow the rules set by her state government"

              I doubt you will find any state that finds it necessary to include "you must give driver's licenses to women under the same limitations as men".  Although not explicitly stated, it is assumed.  Just as selling goods to all, not just your religious congregation, is assumed once you have a public "store" to sell from.

              Abortions/gay treatment - I covered this earlier.  Doctors must give abortions to save the woman's life/health.  They must provide care to gays, but do not have to do transgender surgery, or even hormonal treatments in a forlorn attempt to "change" a person's sex..  In both cases it goes against their hippocratic oath, something universally accepted in this country (until it comes to a psychiatric "statement" about Trump, anyway, whereupon any such things is ignored). 

              I would add, as explanation of my statement, that should the government formally decide that a 1 month fetus is not a human being then it all changes.  At this time there is no such declaration, and doctors/hospitals/priests/citizens are free to make their own determination.

              1. Sharlee01 profile image80
                Sharlee01posted 15 months agoin reply to this

                In regard to abortion, I spoke of elected abortion.  A doctor would be going against his oath to save lives if he did not care for a woman that was having a spontaneous miscarriage in any trimester.

                Yes, thus far no physician can be forced to perform an abortion and can pick an choose patients. 

                And I don't really realistically see the Biden administration will win this case. Just thought t was a lawsuit many were not aware of, and felt to bring it to the attention of those that comment here. So, much going on in regard to this administration's hopes to push overreach into our private lives, and private businesses. and their attempts to reach their long arms into various states.  One positive, this administration has been curtailed by our courts. However, that does not keep them from trying and trying to keep their overreach on the down low.

                I will admit I don't agree with some of what you have shared, but I do see where you are coming from.

            2. Credence2 profile image78
              Credence2posted 15 months agoin reply to this

              No, she is working under an employer's rules, State Government rules...  She took a job that requires her to follow the rules set by her state government. 

              No, Federal Law and statute sets the rules....

              1. Sharlee01 profile image80
                Sharlee01posted 15 months agoin reply to this

                Departments of Motor Vehicles are state agencies.

        2. Credence2 profile image78
          Credence2posted 15 months agoin reply to this

          The only one who said explicitly that we need to do away with the Constitution is Donald Trump.

          1. Sharlee01 profile image80
            Sharlee01posted 15 months agoin reply to this

            Very true, and I would think that will be his downfall.

          2. DrMark1961 profile image96
            DrMark1961posted 15 months agoin reply to this

            Wow, you really are twisting words here. He was talking about the constitution relative to the voting fraud and nothing else. As I have seen here it is the Democratic party representatives who have been interested in writing "a document written by a bunch of old white slave owners".
            Or have you forgotten that?

            1. Credence2 profile image78
              Credence2posted 15 months agoin reply to this

              "He then went a big step further, writing: “A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution. Our great ‘Founders’ did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!”
              He followed up by posting “UNPRECEDENTED FRAUD REQUIRES UNPRECEDENTED CURE!”
              ------
              So, what are you talking about, Doc?

              This excuse for a man who continues to rant on about a fraud that he never could prove wants to destroy our venerable document so that we can literally turn the world upside down to accommodate him? Come on, Doc has your diabetic myopathy affected you to the point that you can't see what is clearly before everyone else?

              No one that seeks the highest office in the land should should ever utter such things. He is JERK, Doc, I have told you this before.....

              Unlike Rightwingers, I evaluate effective leaders based upon their adherence to rules not in their temerity and determination to break them.

              1. DrMark1961 profile image96
                DrMark1961posted 15 months agoin reply to this

                I am talking about the elections. That is what he was talking about, or did you not notice that? You state that he wanted to destroy the constitution, when for years I have been hearing Democrats complain about how they are saddled with a document written hundreds of years ago back before woke.

                I realize that your liberal myopathy is inventing all sorts of things here, but whether or not you like the man has nothing to do with what he said. If you do not like him that is your business, but this would be like come conservative coming along and saying Biden wants to destroy the US through supporting China. He may not be a good leader but he is not doing things through bad will, just stupidity.

                If you were really evaluating effective leaders you would not be supporting Biden in all of these threads.

                1. Credence2 profile image78
                  Credence2posted 15 months agoin reply to this

                  The Constitution proscribes how elections are to take place, we are to adhere to that and not the ravings of one man.

                  The Constitution can be amended, but not scrapped to make changes as provided within its provisions. I don't recall Democrats speaking of termination of all rules, regulations and articles to include those within the Constitution, have you? I will hold Trump accountable for what he says and not find a convenient excuse to discount his very words.

                  Conservatives can say what ever they want and it is just their opinion that a Democrat policy is destroying the country. Biden is not a dictator and has to work whatever his take on matters are with the legislature, that is following the rules. "Bad will" is just your opinion, the voters with Biden's election chose which course that they would take and that is good enough for me.

                  While Biden is not perfect, he is definitely the lesser of two evils.

                  1. DrMark1961 profile image96
                    DrMark1961posted 15 months agoin reply to this

                    I dont recall Trump speaking of termination of all rules regulations, and articles of the Constitution. Do you?

                    I just said that it is not bad will, just poor leadership. Did you read what I wrote? I realize that you think that Biden is not the lesser of two evils. Many people disagree on that.

    3. Credence2 profile image78
      Credence2posted 15 months agoin reply to this

      I am not particularely qualified to speak on the transgender issue.

      "I feel Government has no right to force anyone to do anything that goes against their religious beliefs. What do you think?"

      But I do have an opinion on this. Remember the county worker in Kentucky who resisted making a marriage license for a same sex couple? So, you have a right to your religious beliefs but if they conflict with a secular job, you can still keep your beliefs but should and must be compelled to find another job, if you can't perform duties as required.

      If you don't believe in the Muslim religion, you are still required to serve a lady in a burka regardless of your beliefs if you want to operate your establishment as a public accommodation. If not, then you could surrender your license and serve up your vitals to your grandkids instead.

      1. Sharlee01 profile image80
        Sharlee01posted 15 months agoin reply to this

        When taking a job, the boss or owner should lay out what they expect an employee to do. Yes, at that point I think it fair to tell a hiree that he must work under the conditions of the job.

        However, if an owner of a business constructs his job description around his religious beliefs that is also fair.  The general public has no right to dictate to a private business owner, they have the right to not use their services.

        I don't feel the government should pass laws that dictate rules or regulations that interfere with one's religious beliefs.

        I think your burka example is right on,  it is a religious belief, and should not be discriminated against.  The Burka would fall into a religious right. Discriminating against homosexuals can't be equated to a religious right. I don't feel there is a religion on earth that condones homosexuality or abortion.

        In my view, one can't put religious rights into the same box as sexual gender rights. I think if someone wearing a burka is not permitted to be served,  they are impinging on her religious rights.  Homosexuality is not a religion but does go against many religious teachings.

        We are talking about human rights when it comes to homosexuality.

        My view -- it would be a wonderful world if common sense kindness could rule. And that those that claim to have religious beliefs that prevent them from interacting with another lifestyle would just be kind, and excepting of others. Do on to others... 

        My main concern is the Government forcing blanket laws that do impinge on religious rights, and in my view, is government overreach.   Telling citizens, they will accept ideologies that their Government tells them to accept. This is not acceptable in my view.   

        Can we pick and choose what we will discriminate against?  Don't discriminate against Homosexuals, but discriminate against religious beliefs...

        Government has no right to dictate on either issue, IMO.

        1. wilderness profile image94
          wildernessposted 15 months agoin reply to this

          "I don't feel there is a religion on earth that condones homosexuality or abortion."  Of course there is; in my home, one of the bastions of religion and conservatism, there are several churches welcoming gays and performing gay marriages.

          "My view -- it would be a wonderful world if common sense kindness could rule."

          You are absolutely right.  Unfortunately, religion as a whole is not noted for tolerance; it is almost always "My way (or at least "the way I have decided God wants" or the highway".

          I assume you do not support Sharia Law being enforced within Muslim enclaves; how is it different to not support Christian beliefs in a store? 

          The govt. does not demand acceptance of ideologies... except that of tolerating other religious beliefs.  Something that our history (and that of the world in general) tells us is absolutely necessary to prevent horrors of the past.  Our forefathers were wise enough to recognize this - it should not be difficult to step outside our own beliefs and recognize it as well.

          "Can we pick and choose what we will discriminate against? "

          No.  That is the point of the whole thing: that we do not get to choose who we will discriminate against.  We don't as individuals, we don't as neighborhoods, we don't as states and we certainly don't as a nation.  All are equal in the eyes of the law, even if not in the eyes of religion, and the law trumps religion.  IMO - we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

          1. Sharlee01 profile image80
            Sharlee01posted 15 months agoin reply to this

            I think that it's a good idea to agree to disagree on this one. We have been beating this subject to death, now for some years.  However,  I note no one will commit to answering my basic hypothetical question in regard to Government overreach on this subject.  That was the true subject of this thread.  The ongoing laws suit. That now will need to be heard by the Supreme Court, if the current administration pushes it that far.

            It seems I have received lots of dancing around the subject.  I don't think the government would win this case, due to the First Amendment being very clear in regard to the subect. Do you think our federal government should have the right to dictate by law that Christian medical organizations perform abortions or gender transition surgeries under the Affordable Care Act?

            Very simply my questions are meant to glean views on Government overreach, not the social implications of the subject.

            My OP questions -- I feel Government has no right to force anyone to do anything that goes against their religious beliefs. What do you think?

            Do you think our federal government should have the right to dictate by law that Christian medical organizations perform abortions or gender transition surgeries under the Affordable Care Act?

            Whether is it acceptable for a Government to force a Doctor to violate his religious beliefs to perform an ELECTED abortion or any form of transgender medical services?

            I had hoped to glean insight into just these basic questions. I will admit the silence is telling, and I have come to learn a bit about human nature.

            Does the silence indicate some are willing to just accept the Government's overreach in regard to this given subject?

            1. wilderness profile image94
              wildernessposted 15 months agoin reply to this

              "Do you think our federal government should have the right to dictate by law that Christian medical organizations perform abortions or gender transition surgeries under the Affordable Care Act?"

              I answered that in a clear negative.  They must provide care for patients AFTER their surgeries, but that's all.  IMO of course.

              "I feel Government has no right to force anyone to do anything that goes against their religious beliefs. What do you think?"

              If that "anything" is basically the same as they are doing for everyone else (baking a cake, or building a website, for example) then yes, they must do it.  IMO again.  If they are selling from inside the church, no, but when they sell publicly to anyone at all then yes they must do as ask.

              1. Sharlee01 profile image80
                Sharlee01posted 15 months agoin reply to this

                "If they are selling from inside the church, no, but when they sell publicly to anyone at all then yes they must do as ask."

                If I understand your answer ---   Federal Government should be allowed to pass laws to make sure private businesses do provide their service to all, as long as they pay, and do what they say.

                1. wilderness profile image94
                  wildernessposted 15 months agoin reply to this

                  "as long as they pay, and do what they say"

                  Not sure what that means, but basically I think you've got it.  Discrimination is far too important an issue, has caused far too much damage, and hurt far to many people, to allow dislike of other's belief system to rule the day.  There are exceptions (aren't there always?), but simply claiming that my God does not approve of someone is not sufficient to allow discrimination against them.

                  I suppose it might be different if one could prove, "beyond a reasonable doubt" what that God wants, but it is belief, after all, not fact.  So...run your life according to your belief, do not attempt to run another's.

                  1. Sharlee01 profile image80
                    Sharlee01posted 15 months agoin reply to this

                    If a person is willing to pay for a service the owner must do what is asked of them in regard to the service they offer to the general public.

                    "Discrimination is far too important an issue to allow dislike of other's belief system to rule the day. "

                    This statement seems as if you are saying one person must bend to another belief system. In the end, one has been discriminated against.
                    In the scenario where a Doctor is forced by law against his religious beliefs to do an abortion or participate in Gender transformation, who has been discriminated against? Was it the patent/ or the doctor? 

                    Have you looked into the court case that I cited in my OP?  Have you considered the Frist amendment?  Do you feel we should perhaps amend the first amendment to suit more Government overreach?  This case clearly is cut and dry in regard to the First Amendment.

            2. Fayetteville Faye profile image59
              Fayetteville Fayeposted 15 months agoin reply to this

              My OP questions -- I feel Government has no right to force anyone to do anything that goes against their religious beliefs. What do you think?

              I just don't get it or this is totally going over my head. I am guessing that a surgeon would have to be very specifically trained to perform transgender surgery. To me, that indicates their willingness and interest in performing that work. Doesn't seem like we'd be forcing them to do anything. I just don't understand the force part of this issue? Who would be forced to perform these procedures? Is the idea that those hospitals that accept government funds such as Medicaid or Medicare would have to find doctors to be on staff that were amenable to these types of procedures?  I mean like I said I can force my plumber to do my electrical work but it's probably not going to turn out very well.

              1. Sharlee01 profile image80
                Sharlee01posted 15 months agoin reply to this

                This article is a good place to start understanding the case. As I said the questions were hypothetical.   Your point was taken, and agreed with a doctor can not be forced to do anything against his will or training. 

                https://www.reuters.com/legal/governmen … 022-08-29/

        2. Credence2 profile image78
          Credence2posted 15 months agoin reply to this

          The rights to equal accommodation acts of 1964 does say that all those offering a public accommodation MuST provide it equally and without partiality. I stand behind that fervently and if you read a little history on the topic, you would know better. It is right up there with mandating prayers in public schools. Your business is yours but it runs under implicit and explicit obligations to the general public. The proprietor is simply not an island and that is just the way it is and the way that I would prefer it to remain. If I took that kind of stuff seriously, I would still be fighting at for a seat at Woolworth lunch counters and sitting at the back of the bus. People's religious biases have been the source of excuses to discriminate against any and everybody, depending on who it is you dislike.

          I don't understand you conservative people, anti-semitism was the rage in the society not so long ago. So, because of religious beliefs, being a Protestant, the proprietor can deny Jews the right to rent an apartment or sit at a diner solely because they are Jewish and they conflict with your concepts of Christianity?

          Yes, we are in disagreement. There is no way that I would tolerate a society where people could use any version of their so called religious beliefs to deny service to others without any more tangible reason than that.

          1. Sharlee01 profile image80
            Sharlee01posted 15 months agoin reply to this

            You are all over the map. My OP is about one specific lawsuit in regard to Catholic Hospitals and ACA requirements that they feel go against their religious beliefs. I asked a few very straightforward questions, they were hypothetical in nature. 

            I was concentrating on religious rights, and government overreach and freedom of religion as our Frist Amendment covers very clearly.

            It is obvious this OP hit a nerve with many, and no one really directly felt comfortable with my direct questions.  All have made very compelling points that cover discrimination.

      2. wilderness profile image94
        wildernessposted 15 months agoin reply to this

        And if you are of the Muslim religion, you must serve and sell to the woman without a burka. 

        It works both ways, which is why the religion clause was written into the Constitution: to prevent religious beliefs from being extended beyond the personal and into the public.

        1. Miebakagh57 profile image72
          Miebakagh57posted 15 months agoin reply to this

          I think religion is a no-status-bare?

        2. Credence2 profile image78
          Credence2posted 15 months agoin reply to this

          A truer statement cannot be found......

    4. Miebakagh57 profile image72
      Miebakagh57posted 15 months agoin reply to this

      I'm an outsider. My take is that freedom of religion and of concience, are both entrenched in the American Constitution.                                       That said, the Biden Administration, is acting as no-brain. The courts are right in stopping them.

    5. profile image68
      KC McGeeposted 15 months agoin reply to this

      If we didn't have such a decadent president we wouldn't be going through this

      1. profile image68
        KC McGeeposted 15 months agoin reply to this

        Come to think of it, biden leadership is MORAL DECAY.

      2. Sharlee01 profile image80
        Sharlee01posted 15 months agoin reply to this

        I agree, I am not sure it is not Obama pulling the strings. All this crap was not the Joe of the old days, he was a straight-up racist in days gone by. This court battle started under the Obama administration, and now Biden has picked up the cause.

        1. profile image68
          KC McGeeposted 15 months agoin reply to this

          obama and biden are both racist and decadent low lifes.

          1. Miebakagh57 profile image72
            Miebakagh57posted 15 months agoin reply to this

            That I don't know. Thanks.

        2. Miebakagh57 profile image72
          Miebakagh57posted 15 months agoin reply to this

          It was a bad 'cause' as the Courts has over rule matter against the Biden administration.

  2. Fayetteville Faye profile image59
    Fayetteville Fayeposted 15 months ago

    There is absolutely nothing in here that stipulates or discusses forcing doctors to do anything. Again it's almost the same as the wedding site designer situation. You let everyone in the door but it doesn't mean you provide the services they're looking for.


    The more I look into the proposed changes the more I can see this has absolutely nothing to do with forcing doctors to perform services outside of their expertise.

    For example, if a clinician refused to provide a prostate exam to a Transgender woman because she has breasts  that could be discriminatory.

    Additionally another example, if a clinician refused to prescribe medically necessary hormone therapy to an Intersex person, but prescribes hormone therapy to non-Intersex patients, that refusal could constitute discrimination.

    Or For example, a hospital refusing to allow a pregnant woman’s female partner to accompany them to prenatal visits, while allowing the male partners of other pregnant women to attend prenatal visits, could constitute sex discrimination.

    This is the type of discrimination President Biden's changes were to address. Not in any way to force doctors into procedures outside of their abilities.

    https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2022/07/ … -care.html

  3. Fayetteville Faye profile image59
    Fayetteville Fayeposted 15 months ago

    Just an aside but all of these religious objections are just a pure crock to me.   The teachings, life and actions of Jesus are really in complete opposition to what these people claim.   These people will have to account for their hypocrisy when the day comes.

    1. Credence2 profile image78
      Credence2posted 15 months agoin reply to this

      In stark contrast to the Pharisees he so often criticized as hypocrites during His lifetime.

      1. Fayetteville Faye profile image59
        Fayetteville Fayeposted 15 months agoin reply to this

        Fantastic parallel. The Pharisees, like many  who obsess over rules and judge others, are rightly put in their place. Jesus explained to them that the law which they assumed they completely understood, is far from the true purpose of the law established by God and His Prophets. Rather than being an external, regimented, dry list of rules, the Lord emphasises that they are commandments centred on loving God and our neighbor  But they used their religion to express rage and demean.

        1. Credence2 profile image78
          Credence2posted 15 months agoin reply to this

          Yes, thank you, they showboat over minutia, while ignoring the far more weightier matters of the law..

  4. Readmikenow profile image94
    Readmikenowposted 15 months ago

    Catholic healthcare providers can't be forced to do gender surgeries: U.S. court

    Reuters) - The Biden administration cannot force a group of Catholic healthcare providers and professionals to perform gender transition surgeries under an Obama-era regulation barring sex discrimination in healthcare, a U.S. appeals court ruled on Friday.

    A unanimous three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with a North Dakota federal judge who said the U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) rule infringes on the religious freedoms of the plaintiffs, including a group of nuns who run health clinics for the poor and an association of Catholic healthcare professionals.

    HHS did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    Luke Goodrich of the conservative Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, who represents the plaintiffs, said the ruling will protect patients and ensure doctors can follow their oath to "do no harm."

    “The federal government has no business forcing doctors to violate their consciences or perform controversial procedures that could permanently harm their patients,” Goodrich said in a statement.

    https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigatio … 022-12-09/

  5. Nathanville profile image92
    Nathanvilleposted 15 months ago

    Another area of American culture that seems alien to a Brit:  In the UK anyone of any age, including children if they can demonstrate an understanding of the issues, has a legal right to seek transgender care on the NHS e.g. free healthcare.  And in the UK religion isn’t an issue because in recent decades Britain has become a secular society.

    1. Readmikenow profile image94
      Readmikenowposted 15 months agoin reply to this

      "anyone of any age, including children if they can demonstrate an understanding of the issues"

      This makes the UK a frightening place to raise a child.

      Maybe people in the UK don't understand the seriousness of this issue.  Maybe there needs to be a study of the many, many individuals who have "detransitioned" and the many intense regrets they have. 

      Young girls having their breasts removed, Young men being made infertile because of puberty blockers they are given.  Young people who went through a phase in their life are now left mutilated for life.  Could this have been stopped if the transgender industry was more tightly controlled?  It is a topic for debate. 

      The many, many people who have detransitioned have some rather powerful and scary stories to tell about the transgender industry.

      It is a horrible thing.

      1. Nathanville profile image92
        Nathanvilleposted 15 months agoin reply to this

        In the UK medical treatment of children of any age without their parent's knowledge and consent, where the child can demonstrate an understanding of the issues, is legal under juridical law passed by the Supreme Court in 1985 - It's called the Gillick competence.

        As far back as the 1970s children under the age of 16 could go to their doctor and get the pill without their parent’s knowledge or consent on the principle of ‘doctor/patient confidentiality’; and doctors would be inclined to issue the pill to under age children on the grounds that if they were going to have sex anyway, it’s better that they have protected sex and don’t end up with an unwanted pregnancy.

        All this came to ahead in 1985 when the NHS was taken to court for such a practice by Victoria Gillick, an activist who ran a campaign against such a policy.  Victoria Gillick initially lost her case in court, but won it in the appeal court, only to lose again when it ended up in the Supreme Court where the judges made the ruling that “a child under the age of 16 is able to consent to their own medical treatment, without the need for parental permission or knowledge” as long as that child can convince their doctor that they are capable of understanding the nature and consequences of the medical advice.

        This Wikipedia article explains the Gillick competence rule (Juridical law): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gillick_competence

        https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/consent-t … for%20them

        I don’t totally disagree with what you say, and neither does the NHS.  And people in the UK do understand the seriousness of the issue.  That’s why the NHS will not perform any irreversible surgery on a child under the age of 18 – but after full consultation the NHS will consider prescribing ‘puberty blockers’ to the child until after they are 16 after which point they can then proceed with more radical treatment if that is what they really want, eventually leading to surgery after the age of 18.

        But such decisions by the NHS are not taken lightly.  Any child in the UK under the age of 18 who goes to their doctor because of ‘gender dysphoria’ will in the first instance be referred to one of two clinics (one in London and one in Leeds) where they will then be seen by a multidisciplinary team consisting of:

        •    clinical psychologist
        •    child psychotherapist
        •    child and adolescent psychiatrist
        •    family therapist
        •    social worker

        The team will carry out a detailed assessment, usually over 3 to 6 appointments over a period of several months.  Depending on the results of the assessment, options for children and teenagers include:

        •    family therapy
        •    individual child psychotherapy
        •    parental support or counselling
        •    group work for young people and their parents
        •    regular reviews to monitor gender identity development
        •    referral to a local Children and Young People's Mental Health Service (CYPMHS) for more serious emotional issues
        •    a referral to a specialist hormone (endocrine) clinic for hormone blockers for children who meet strict criteria (at puberty)

        Most treatments offered at this stage are psychological rather than medical. This is because in many cases gender variant behaviour or feelings disappear as children reach puberty.

        https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dy … treatment/

    2. DrMark1961 profile image96
      DrMark1961posted 15 months agoin reply to this

      That may be your viewpoint, but in the UK there are also many people who do not want their taxes to go to this surgery. This is a petition that the UK government rejected:

      "Tax money is being poured into this surgery that has proven its self not to be as effective. I disagree with how tax money is being allowed to contribute to the stats above which is why it should remain available in the private sector."
      https://petition.parliament.uk/archived … ons/256393

      Also, concerning children: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-brit … SKBN28B3AV

      1. Nathanville profile image92
        Nathanvilleposted 15 months agoin reply to this

        I think you may have misinterpreted what you saw on the ‘UK Parliament Petitions Website’; which not being a Brit is perfectly understandable.

        What you saw was NOT a petition given to the Government, but an application by an individual to Parliament to start a new petition; and Parliament rejected that application request because although the NHS is State owned and State financed, the policy decision (within the law) and management of the NHS is the responsibility of the NHS not the Government.

        There is no indication whatsoever from the rejected petition application that “many people do not want their taxes to be spent on such surgery”, all that the rejected petition application states is that in “2014 there was a survey of more than 2000 trans in the UK”, but it does not give any details of that survey, and I can find no trace of such a survey on Google. 

        The UK Parliament Petitions Website was first set up by the Labour (Socialist) Government in 2006 on the Government’s own website, making the Government itself (The Executive) responsible for managing the website.  In 2011 the Conservative Government moved it to the Parliament Website, so now the management of the petition website is the responsibility of Parliament itself (The Legislature).

        Any UK citizen who is registered to vote can submit an application to the ‘UK Parliament Petitions Website’ to start a new petition, subject to it meeting the criteria:  https://petition.parliament.uk/help#standards

        If you want to see how an approved petition application in action, to see how the procedure works:  https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/617603 

        Concerning your second link e.g. where in December 2020 the High Court ruled that “children under the age of 16 will need court approval in England and Wales to access puberty blockers:  The NHS appealed that decision, and the Court of Appeal in September 2021 found in the NHS favour; so the juridical law passed by the Supreme Court in 1985 (the Gillick competence) is once again applicable to children with suspected gender dysphoria, do have the freedom to make their own decisions, provided they can demonstrate competence in understanding the issues:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gillick_competence

        In fact the ‘not surprising’ reaction from you and Mike did put a smile on my face:  Americans are always harping on that people should have the ‘freedom’ to make their own choices without interference from the Government; and here we have a situation in the UK where children of any age (who demonstrates competence in understanding the issues) do have the legal right under British law to make their own choices without Government inference – yet both you and Mike disapprove of that freedom!

        1. DrMark1961 profile image96
          DrMark1961posted 15 months agoin reply to this

          Despite the fact that you and the rest of your socialist cabal are interested in ripping children away from their parents and making them wards of the state, I am not interested in seeing this. When a child becomes an adult and decides that he or she wants to be transgendered that is their choice. When they are a little kid they can dress up all they want, call themselves whatever they want, but performing a medical procedure on them is wrong. That is child abuse, There are side effects. Are you able to understand that?

          1. Nathanville profile image92
            Nathanvilleposted 15 months agoin reply to this

            I am only stating what the law is in the UK; and FYI it’s a conservative (right-wing capitalist) Government that we currently have in power in the UK, not a Socialist Government – And the law as it stands doesn’t seem to be of any concern to our Conservative Government.

            Besides, if you read what I wrote, and followed the links I provided, you will see that the NHS does NOT carry out any irreversible surgery on anyone under the age of 18; at most, all they will do is provide puberty blockers free of charge.

            The question is whether there are any long term risks to taking puberty blockers, and if you read the NHS website (link provided in my previous positing above) on the subject they are quite open about admitting that they don’t know; and when consulting with children in their care about it the NHS will make the child fully aware of any potential risks - but the final decision is the child's. 

            Under UK law (if they can prove competency of understanding) they are neither the 'ward of the State' no more than the child is subjected to the will of their parent's, under British law children who show competency of understanding have 'free will' e.g. they have 'freedom to make thier own decisions' without interference from the State (Government).

            I know that you don’t agree with the British culture in this respect (and many other respects), but that’s the way things are; and it doesn’t bother me, because being British I do believe in empowering children – it’s part of our culture.

            1. DrMark1961 profile image96
              DrMark1961posted 15 months agoin reply to this

              Long term side effects are called long term because they do not show up right away. If someone is an adult and they choose to make that decision that is their choice. Children are not allowed to buy alcohol, not allowed to drive, not allowed to participate in politics. Why in the world would any society think "Well, it is okay to allow self mutilation as long as they know what they are doing." I am surprised your society has not also passed a law allowing minors to commit suicide, as long as they realize what they are doing.

              That is not empowering children. That is child abuse.

              1. Nathanville profile image92
                Nathanvilleposted 15 months agoin reply to this

                Interesting that you should mention alcohol and politics:

                ALCOHOL:
                Correct, in the UK children are not allowed to buy alcohol until they are 18; but under UK law:

                •    It is legal for children to drink in their own home from the age of 5.

                •    It is legal for children from the age of 16 to drink in public if they are sitting at a table to eat a meal, and if someone over the age of 18 buys the alcohol.

                POLITICS:
                Actually, in the UK children from the age of 11 are allowed to participate in politics.

                In 2000 the Labour (Socialist) Government helped with the formation of the UK Youth Parliament. 

                The Youth Parliament has 369 elected school children from the age of 11 to 18, elected annually by their fellow school children aged between 11 & 18; elected to represent the views of young people in their area to government and service providers.

                In 2009 the Labour (Socialist) Government allowed the UK Youth Parliament to use the House of Commons for one day to debate and vote on issues to formulate the Youth Parliament’s policies for that year; a tradition that every Government, including the Conservative Government, has honoured ever since.

                One of the long outstanding campaigns of the UK Youth Parliament is to lower the voting age to 16; and they have had partial success e.g. the Socialist Government in Scotland reduced the voting age to 16 in Scotland in 2015, and the Socialist Government in Wales reduced the voting age to 16 in Wales in 2020.

                A clip from the UK Youth Parliament debating the voting age in the House of Commons: https://youtu.be/u894bXZoyZs

                And it might surprise you that in the UK, at age 16 you have the legal right to join the Armed Forces.

                So yes, in the UK children do have a lot more empowerment than in the USA for example.

                1. DrMark1961 profile image96
                  DrMark1961posted 15 months agoin reply to this

                  Yes, I guess suicide is still out for the moment but it does look drugs are also ok for kids in the UK: https://www.essex.police.uk/police-forc … s-edibles/

                  That is child empowerment?

                  1. Nathanville profile image92
                    Nathanvilleposted 15 months agoin reply to this

                    And I guess you’re saying that the USA doesn’t have a drug problem?

                    I haven’t done any detailed research on this topic, but a cursory look suggests that drug abuse may be more of a problem in the USA than the UK, for example:-

                    UK:
                    •    3.1% of adults in England show signs of drug dependency.
                    •    Misuse of prescription drugs and use of cannabis, inhalants, or other drugs in the UK is less than 1.1% of adolescents.

                    USA:
                    •    7.8% of 19 to 22 year olds regularly use drugs.

                    Although it’s not possible to make an informed decision without spending a lot more time researching (and I have better ways to spend my time); I did find this link which I found of some interest:-

                    https://news.umich.edu/compared-with-eu … -drug-use/

                  2. Nathanville profile image92
                    Nathanvilleposted 15 months agoin reply to this

                    The EU & UK are often accused of being ‘Nanny States’ by Americans (and we are); but in the UK, once children go to ‘Secondary School’ at the age of 11 we tend not to molly coddle them and start treat them more like mini-adults, which is something Americans don’t seem to do?

    3. AliciaC profile image94
      AliciaCposted 15 months agoin reply to this

      I don’t agree with the fact that children can change genders biologically. The change will affect their whole life, which is fine if it’s the right one for them but sad if it’s the wrong one. Allowances should be made to allow children to live as the opposite gender, however. Surface changes should be supported, and parents, teachers, and perhaps counsellors should provide as much help as they can. When the children reach the age of adulthood in their country, what they do to their body is up to them.

      1. DrMark1961 profile image96
        DrMark1961posted 15 months agoin reply to this

        I do not live in the UK but I do not think it is acceptable for kids there either. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-brit … SKBN28B3AV

        Arent you in Canada? What is the situation like where you live?

        1. AliciaC profile image94
          AliciaCposted 15 months agoin reply to this

          I can only speak for British Columbia, where I live. The age of majority when a person becomes an adult is 19. I did a quick check of hospitals in the province and found that gender change surgery can begin then. One that I checked mentioned 18 as the minimum age for one procedure, though.

          1. DrMark1961 profile image96
            DrMark1961posted 15 months agoin reply to this

            It is 18 here too.

      2. Nathanville profile image92
        Nathanvilleposted 15 months agoin reply to this

        Yep, you are right, and essentially that is the approach in the UK.  In the UK the NHS (National Health Service) will not perform any irreversible surgery on a child under the age of 18, but they will consider giving a child puberty blockers if that child can demonstrate that they are competent enough to understand the issues.

        Any child (of any age) in the UK under the age of 18 who goes to their doctor because of ‘gender dysphoria’ will in the first instance be referred to one of two clinics (one in London and one in Leeds) where they will then be seen by a multidisciplinary team consisting of:

        •    clinical psychologist
        •    child psychotherapist
        •    child and adolescent psychiatrist
        •    family therapist
        •    social worker

        The team will carry out a detailed assessment, usually over 3 to 6 appointments over a period of several months.  Depending on the results of the assessment, options for children and teenagers include:

        •    family therapy
        •    individual child psychotherapy
        •    parental support or counselling
        •    group work for young people and their parents
        •    regular reviews to monitor gender identity development
        •    referral to a local Children and Young People's Mental Health Service (CYPMHS) for more serious emotional issues
        •    a referral to a specialist hormone (endocrine) clinic for hormone blockers for children who meet strict criteria (at puberty)

        Most treatments offered at this stage are psychological rather than medical. This is because in many cases gender variant behaviour or feelings disappear as children reach puberty.

        https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dy … treatment/

  6. Readmikenow profile image94
    Readmikenowposted 15 months ago

    Doctors Have Failed Them, Say Those Who Regret Transitioning

    People who had transitioned to the opposite gender and later decided to reverse their transition shared about how they felt the medical establishment had failed them in a unique Zoom conference earlier this month.

    The forum was convened by Genspect, a parent-based organization seeking to put the brakes on medical transitions for adolescents and children. The group has doubts about the gender-affirming care model supported by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and other medical groups.

    "Affirmative" medical care is defined as treatment with puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for those with gender dysphoria to transition to the opposite sex, and is often followed by gender reassignment surgery.

    However, there is growing concern among many doctors and other healthcare professionals as to whether this is, in fact, the best way to proceed for those under aged 18, in particular, with several countries pulling back on medical treatment and instead emphasizing psychotherapy first.

    The purpose of the second annual Genspect meeting, held March 12 and dubbed #DetransitionAwarenessDay, was to shed light on the experiences of individuals who have detransitioned — those that identified as transgender and transitioned, but then decided to end their medical transition. People logged on from the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, the United Kingdom, Germany, Spain, Chile, and Brazil, among other countries.

    "This is a minority within a minority," said Genspect advisor Stella O'Malley, adding that the first meeting in 2021 was held because "too many people were dismissing the stories of the detransitioners." O'Malley is a psychotherapist, a clinical advisor to the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine, and a founding member of the International Association of Therapists for Desisters and Detransitioners.

    "It's become blindingly obvious over the last year that...'detrans' is a huge part of the trans phenomenon," said O'Malley, adding that detransitioners have been "undermined and dismissed."

    Laura Edwards-Leeper, PhD (@DrLauraEL), a prominent gender therapist who has recently expressed concern regarding adequate gatekeeping when treating youth with gender dysphoria, agreed.

    She tweeted: "You simply can't call yourself a legit gender provider if you don't believe that detransitioners exist. As part of the informed consent process for transitioning, it is unethical to not discuss this possibility with young people." Edwards-Leeper is professor emeritus in the School of Graduate Psychology at Pacific University in Hillsboro, Oregon.

    Speakers in the forum largely offered experiences, not data. They pointed out that there has been little to no study of detransition, but all testified that it was less rare than it has been portrayed by the transgender community.

    Struggles With Going Back

    "There are so many reasons why people detransition," said Sinead Watson, 30, a Genspect advisor who transitioned from female to male, starting in 2015, and who decided to detransition in 2019.

    Citing a study by Lisa Littman, MD, MPH, published last year, Watson said the most common reasons for detransitioning were realizing that gender dysphoria was due to other issues; internal homophobia; and the unbearable nature of transphobia.

    Watson said the hardest part of detransitioning was admitting to herself that her transition had been a mistake. "It's embarrassing and you feel ashamed and guilty," she said, adding that it may mean losing friends who now regard you as a "bigot, while you're also dealing with transition regret."

    "It's a living hell, especially when none of your therapists or counselors will listen to you," she said. "Detransitioning isn't fun."

    Carol (@sourpatches2077) said she knew for a year that her transition had been a mistake.

    "The biggest part was I couldn't tell my family," said Carol, who identifies as a lesbian. "I put them through so much. It seems ridiculous to go, 'Oops, I made this huge [expletive] mistake," she said, describing the moment she did tell them as "devastating."

    Grace (@hormonehangover) said she remembers finally hitting a moment of "undeniability" some years after transitioning. "I accept it, I've ruined my life, this is wrong," she remembers thinking. "It was devastating, but I couldn't deny it anymore."

    Don't Trust Therapists

    People experiencing feelings of unease "need a therapist who will listen to them," said Watson. When she first detransitioned, her therapists treated her badly, she said. "They just didn't want to speak about detransition," she noted, adding that "it was like a kick in the stomach."

    Watson said she'd like to see more training about detransition, but also on "preventative techniques," adding that many people transition who should not. "I don't want more detransitioners — I want less," she said.

    "In order for that to happen, we need to treat people with gender dysphoria properly," said Watson, saying that the affirmative model is "disgusting, and that's what needs to change."

    "I would tell somebody to not go to a therapist," said Carol. Identifying as a butch lesbian, she said she felt like her therapists had pushed her into transitioning to male. "The number one thing not understood by the mental health professionals is that the vast majority of homosexuals were gender-nonconforming children," she said, adding that this is especially true of butch lesbians.

    Therapists — and doctors — also need to acknowledge both the trauma of transition and detransition, she said.

    Kaiser, where she had transitioned, offered her breast reconstruction. Carol said it felt demeaning. "Like you're Mr Potatohead: 'Here, we can just...put on some new parts and you're good to go,'" she said.

    "Doctors are concretizing transient obsessions," said Helena Kerschner (@lacroicsz), quoting a chat room user.

    Kerschner gave a presentation on "fandom": becoming obsessed with a movie, book, TV show, musician, or celebrity, spending every waking hour chatting online or writing fan fiction, or attempting to interact with the celebrities online. It's a fantasy-dominated world and "the vast majority" of participants are teenage girls who are "identifying as trans," in part, because they are fed a community-reinforced message that it's better to be a boy, claimed Kerschner.

    Therapists and physicians who help them transition "are harming them for life based on something they would have grown out of or overcome without the permanent damage," she added

    Doctors "Gaslighting" People Into Belief That Transition Is Answer

    A pervasive theme during the webinar was that many people are being misdiagnosed with gender dysphoria, which may not be resolved by medical transition.

    Allie, a 22-year-old who stopped taking testosterone after one-and-a-half years, said she initially started the transition to male when she gave up trying to figure out why she could not identify with, or befriend, women, and after a childhood and adolescence spent mostly in the company of boys and being more interested in traditionally male activities.

    She endured sexual abuse as a teenager and her parents divorced while she was in high school. Allie also had multiple suicide attempts and many incidents of self-harm, she said. When she decided to transition, at age 18, she went to a private clinic and received cross-sex hormones within a few months of her first and only 30-minute consultation. "There was no explorative therapy," she said, adding that she was never given a formal diagnosis of gender dysphoria.

    For the first year, she said she was "over the freaking moon" because she felt like it was the answer. But things started to unravel while she attended university and she attempted suicide attempt at age 20. A social worker at the school identified her symptoms — which had been the same since childhood — as autism. She then decided to cease her transition.

    Another detransitioner, Laura Becker, said it took 5 years after her transition to recognize that she had undiagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) from emotional and psychiatric abuse. Despite a history of substance abuse, self-harm, suicidal ideation, and other mental health issues, she was given testosterone and had a double-mastectomy at age 20. She became fixated on gay men, which devolved into a methamphetamine- and crack-fueled relationship with a man she met on the gay dating platform Grindr.

    "No one around me knew any better or knew how to help, including the medical professionals who performed the mastectomy and who casually signed-off and administered my medical transition," she said.

    Once she was aware of her PTSD she started to detransition, which itself was traumatic, said Laura.

    Limpida, aged 24, said he felt pushed into transitioning after seeking help at a Planned Parenthood clinic. He identified as trans at age 15 and spent years attempting to be a woman socially, but every step made him feel more miserable, he said. When he went to the clinic at age 21 to get estrogen, he said he felt like the staff was dismissive of his mental health concerns — including that he was suicidal, had substance abuse, and was severely depressed. He was told he was the "perfect candidate" for transitioning.

    A year later, he said he felt worse. The nurse suggested he seek out surgery. After Limpida researched what was involved, he decided to detransition. He has since received an autism diagnosis.

    Robin, also aged 24, said the idea of surgery had helped push him into detransitioning, which began in 2020 after 4 years of estrogen. He said he had always been gender-nonconforming and knew he was gay at an early age. He believes that gender-nonconforming people are "gaslighted" into thinking that transitioning is the answer.

    Lack of Evidence-Base, Informed Consent

    Michelle Alleva, who stopped identifying as transgender in 2020 but had ceased testosterone 4 years earlier because of side effects, cited what she called a lack of evidence base for the effectiveness and safety of medical transitions.

    "You need to have a really, really good evidence base in place if you're going straight to an invasive treatment that is going to cause permanent changes to your body," she said.

    Access to medical transition used to involve more "gatekeeping," through mental health evaluations and other interventions, she said, but there has been a shift from treating what was considered a psychiatric issue to essentially affirming an identity.

    "This shift was activist-driven, not evidence-based," she emphasized.

    Most studies showing satisfaction with transition only involve a few years of follow-up, she said, adding that the longest follow-up study of transition, published in 2011, spanning 30 years, showed that the suicide rate 10-15 years post-surgery was 20 times higher than the general population.

    Studies of regret were primarily conducted before the rapid increase in the number of trans-identifying individuals, she said, which makes it hard to draw conclusions about pediatric transition. Getting estimates on this population are difficult because so many who detransition do not tell their clinicians, and many studies have short follow-up times or a high loss to follow-up.

    Alleva also took issue with the notion that physicians were offering true informed consent, noting that it's not possible to know if someone is psychologically sound if they haven't had a thorough mental health evaluation, and that there are so many unknowns with medical transition, including that many of the therapies are not approved for the uses being employed.

    With regret on the rise, "We need professionals that are prepared for detransitioners," said Alleva. "Some of us have lost trust in health care professionals as a result of our experience," she said.

    "It's a huge feeling of institutional betrayal," said Grace.

    https://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships … nsitioning

  7. Jodah profile image91
    Jodahposted 15 months ago

    No, I think it is wrong. I agree with AliciaC totally.

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)