Mississippi Passes "More Dead Kids Please" bill. Texas responds w/ "hold my beer"

[Jarhyn]

I'm intimately familiar by the difference of output generated by subtle differences in the connections and geometry of such networks. It can be the logical difference between an AND and a NOT in a grammar structure

Brains aren't actually computers. Your persistent conflation of them is errant.

Your persistent inability to understand how brains achieve computation is noted, and is dismissed.

Sex is not a binary, and you're right, it's not a "spectrum" either. It's more like a bit field: it's got a bunch of little units that can each have different values. For "sex" differentiations, some of those individual bits of the output are nonbinary.

The fact is that brains achieve and order relationships via their structure, and those relationships create the people we are, and drive how we shape our thoughts.

It is not all or nothing, and the bad faith in attempts to roll away from those facts is apparent.

 

[Toni]

FFS, I certainly was not referring to gynecomastia. In fact intersex individuals DO exist. Yes, this is a rare anomaly. I certainly did NOT suggest that there is a spectrum of sexes.

Differences of sex development: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia

Differences of sex development (DSD) is a group of conditions in which there is a discrepancy between the external (outside) genitals (penis, scrotum, vulva, labia) and the internal (inside) genitals (testes,

medlineplus.gov

Intersex - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

People who have intersex conditions are NOT in-between sexes. They are all still either male or female.

Don't be misled by poor terminology. "Intersex" makes it sound like these are people who are somehow both sexes, but they aren't. They have ambiguous development of their reproductive organs - something went wonky in development. But none of them is actually both sexes, and none of them are an "in between" sex.

Honestly, read your own links! The wikipedia page lists the various DSDs colloquially called intersex, as well as specifying WHICH SEX is affected by them. The few that say "none" refer to conditions that can affect both males and females, but that in no way at all means those individuals are neither male nor female, nor does it mean they are both.

My goddaughter has a DSD. I know several people with various DSDs. To imply that they're "in between" or some other sex is generally viewed as an insult by them. These are real medical conditions that have very real impacts on people's lives. The politicization of their medical conditions by the transgender activists is really not okay.

Their conditions get used in bad faith to push an entirely different issue, and I find it despicable. The argument generally goes "(1) Well, you can't say male and female are completely different categories, because intersex people exist. (2) The existence of intersex people demonstrates that sex isn't binary, it's a spectrum. (3) Because sex is a spectrum, nobody can actually know for sure who is male and who is female and who is in-between. (4) Since nobody can tell what sex anyone is, we have to rely on their gender identity to prove who they really are. (5) Therefore transwomen are literal women and transmen are literal men"

The problem is that (1) is false. People with DSDs certainly exist, but their condition does NOT make them "in between" the two sexes of male and female, no more so than the existence of people who congenitally lack and arm makes humans have a "spectrum" of arm numbers as a definitive approach. It just means that they have a medical condition that has caused their reproductive anatomy to develop in an unusual or atypical fashion, sometimes producing visually ambiguous genitalia. But they are still, in actuality, either male or female.

Because (1) is false, and relies on the term "intersex" providing a false implication, everything else after that is also false. Because people with DSDs are NOT "in between", it does NOT follow that sex isn't binary - sex is very much binary. There are only two gametes, there are only two sexes. That some members of one sex or the other are atypical in their development does not imply that there are more than two sexes, or that sexes are a spectrum... there are still only two gametes, and there are still only two sexes.

Sex isn't a spectrum, sex is a binary. The entire evolutionary result of sex is reproduction, and reproduction in mammals ABSOLUTELY cannot happen without one of each sex being involved. Reproduction ABSOLUTELY requires two - and only two - sexes among mammals. And while some few people are androgynous in appearance, this is quite rare, and humans are extremely good at determining the sex of other adult humans. We're very close to 100% accurate, even without social cues like hairstyle and clothing. Our faces alone are dimorphic enough that we can determine the sex of an un-augmented person from their faces with so close to 100% accuracy that it's really quite amazing.

The entire basis of this current discussion about people with DSDs is here because their medical conditions are being used to push a false narrative that a person's subjective view of themselves with respect to social roles is somehow more "reliable" than their actual sex.

Some very few individuals DO indeed have both ovaries and tested. Yes, extremely rare. Less rare, but still rare, are individuals who appear at birth to be one sex but in fact are the other sex.

I’m not trying to be argumentative. For virtually every single human being, biological sex is unambiguous, but for some very small number of individuals, it is not so easily discerned.

 

[Oleg]

Why on earth do you think that sterilization should be an exception from all of the other rules we have in place that prevent children from the future consequences of their bad decisions?

It may be a stereotype, but trans-identifed men really hate women.

 

[Emily Lake]

FFS, I certainly was not referring to gynecomastia. In fact intersex individuals DO exist. Yes, this is a rare anomaly. I certainly did NOT suggest that there is a spectrum of sexes.

Differences of sex development: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia

Differences of sex development (DSD) is a group of conditions in which there is a discrepancy between the external (outside) genitals (penis, scrotum, vulva, labia) and the internal (inside) genitals (testes,

medlineplus.gov

Intersex - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

People who have intersex conditions are NOT in-between sexes. They are all still either male or female.

Don't be misled by poor terminology. "Intersex" makes it sound like these are people who are somehow both sexes, but they aren't. They have ambiguous development of their reproductive organs - something went wonky in development. But none of them is actually both sexes, and none of them are an "in between" sex.

Honestly, read your own links! The wikipedia page lists the various DSDs colloquially called intersex, as well as specifying WHICH SEX is affected by them. The few that say "none" refer to conditions that can affect both males and females, but that in no way at all means those individuals are neither male nor female, nor does it mean they are both.

My goddaughter has a DSD. I know several people with various DSDs. To imply that they're "in between" or some other sex is generally viewed as an insult by them. These are real medical conditions that have very real impacts on people's lives. The politicization of their medical conditions by the transgender activists is really not okay.

Their conditions get used in bad faith to push an entirely different issue, and I find it despicable. The argument generally goes "(1) Well, you can't say male and female are completely different categories, because intersex people exist. (2) The existence of intersex people demonstrates that sex isn't binary, it's a spectrum. (3) Because sex is a spectrum, nobody can actually know for sure who is male and who is female and who is in-between. (4) Since nobody can tell what sex anyone is, we have to rely on their gender identity to prove who they really are. (5) Therefore transwomen are literal women and transmen are literal men"

The problem is that (1) is false. People with DSDs certainly exist, but their condition does NOT make them "in between" the two sexes of male and female, no more so than the existence of people who congenitally lack and arm makes humans have a "spectrum" of arm numbers as a definitive approach. It just means that they have a medical condition that has caused their reproductive anatomy to develop in an unusual or atypical fashion, sometimes producing visually ambiguous genitalia. But they are still, in actuality, either male or female.

Because (1) is false, and relies on the term "intersex" providing a false implication, everything else after that is also false. Because people with DSDs are NOT "in between", it does NOT follow that sex isn't binary - sex is very much binary. There are only two gametes, there are only two sexes. That some members of one sex or the other are atypical in their development does not imply that there are more than two sexes, or that sexes are a spectrum... there are still only two gametes, and there are still only two sexes.

Sex isn't a spectrum, sex is a binary. The entire evolutionary result of sex is reproduction, and reproduction in mammals ABSOLUTELY cannot happen without one of each sex being involved. Reproduction ABSOLUTELY requires two - and only two - sexes among mammals. And while some few people are androgynous in appearance, this is quite rare, and humans are extremely good at determining the sex of other adult humans. We're very close to 100% accurate, even without social cues like hairstyle and clothing. Our faces alone are dimorphic enough that we can determine the sex of an un-augmented person from their faces with so close to 100% accuracy that it's really quite amazing.

The entire basis of this current discussion about people with DSDs is here because their medical conditions are being used to push a false narrative that a person's subjective view of themselves with respect to social roles is somehow more "reliable" than their actual sex.

Some very few individuals DO indeed have both ovaries and tested. Yes, extremely rare. Less rare, but still rare, are individuals who appear at birth to be one sex but in fact are the other sex.

I’m not trying to be argumentative. For virtually every single human being, biological sex is unambiguous, but for some very small number of individuals, it is not so easily discerned.

"Not easily discerned" does not mean "is in between", Toni.

Ovotesticular disorder can occur in both males and females. And in those couple of documented cases where an individual had one ovary and one testis (like seriously, I think there have been two), those individuals had other reproductive anatomy that was clearly of one sex. There has never been a single documented case of an individual human actually producing both eggs and sperm in the same body.

 

[laughing dog]

In my opinion, banning a medical procedure that may help some people because it may also harm others is a lazy or stupid policy response to an issue.

 

[Oleg]

In my opinion, banning a medical procedure that may help some people because it may also harm others is a lazy or stupid policy response to an issue.

No medical procedure is being banned. It just simple recognition that a child cannot give informed consent on a procedure that will cause sterility and irreparably change their life.

 

[laughing dog]

In my opinion, banning a medical procedure that may help some people because it may also harm others is a lazy or stupid policy response to an issue.

No medical procedure is being banned. It just simple recognition that a child cannot give informed consent on a procedure that will cause sterility and irreparable change their life.

The reports I have seen consistently indicate HB1125 prohibits health professionals from performing gender affirming care on minors. That bans access to that care from medical professionals in the state of Mississippi.

One of us is misinformed.

 

[Toni]

FFS, I certainly was not referring to gynecomastia. In fact intersex individuals DO exist. Yes, this is a rare anomaly. I certainly did NOT suggest that there is a spectrum of sexes.

Differences of sex development: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia

Differences of sex development (DSD) is a group of conditions in which there is a discrepancy between the external (outside) genitals (penis, scrotum, vulva, labia) and the internal (inside) genitals (testes,

medlineplus.gov

Intersex - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

People who have intersex conditions are NOT in-between sexes. They are all still either male or female.

Don't be misled by poor terminology. "Intersex" makes it sound like these are people who are somehow both sexes, but they aren't. They have ambiguous development of their reproductive organs - something went wonky in development. But none of them is actually both sexes, and none of them are an "in between" sex.

Honestly, read your own links! The wikipedia page lists the various DSDs colloquially called intersex, as well as specifying WHICH SEX is affected by them. The few that say "none" refer to conditions that can affect both males and females, but that in no way at all means those individuals are neither male nor female, nor does it mean they are both.

My goddaughter has a DSD. I know several people with various DSDs. To imply that they're "in between" or some other sex is generally viewed as an insult by them. These are real medical conditions that have very real impacts on people's lives. The politicization of their medical conditions by the transgender activists is really not okay.

Their conditions get used in bad faith to push an entirely different issue, and I find it despicable. The argument generally goes "(1) Well, you can't say male and female are completely different categories, because intersex people exist. (2) The existence of intersex people demonstrates that sex isn't binary, it's a spectrum. (3) Because sex is a spectrum, nobody can actually know for sure who is male and who is female and who is in-between. (4) Since nobody can tell what sex anyone is, we have to rely on their gender identity to prove who they really are. (5) Therefore transwomen are literal women and transmen are literal men"

The problem is that (1) is false. People with DSDs certainly exist, but their condition does NOT make them "in between" the two sexes of male and female, no more so than the existence of people who congenitally lack and arm makes humans have a "spectrum" of arm numbers as a definitive approach. It just means that they have a medical condition that has caused their reproductive anatomy to develop in an unusual or atypical fashion, sometimes producing visually ambiguous genitalia. But they are still, in actuality, either male or female.

Because (1) is false, and relies on the term "intersex" providing a false implication, everything else after that is also false. Because people with DSDs are NOT "in between", it does NOT follow that sex isn't binary - sex is very much binary. There are only two gametes, there are only two sexes. That some members of one sex or the other are atypical in their development does not imply that there are more than two sexes, or that sexes are a spectrum... there are still only two gametes, and there are still only two sexes.

Sex isn't a spectrum, sex is a binary. The entire evolutionary result of sex is reproduction, and reproduction in mammals ABSOLUTELY cannot happen without one of each sex being involved. Reproduction ABSOLUTELY requires two - and only two - sexes among mammals. And while some few people are androgynous in appearance, this is quite rare, and humans are extremely good at determining the sex of other adult humans. We're very close to 100% accurate, even without social cues like hairstyle and clothing. Our faces alone are dimorphic enough that we can determine the sex of an un-augmented person from their faces with so close to 100% accuracy that it's really quite amazing.

The entire basis of this current discussion about people with DSDs is here because their medical conditions are being used to push a false narrative that a person's subjective view of themselves with respect to social roles is somehow more "reliable" than their actual sex.

Some very few individuals DO indeed have both ovaries and tested. Yes, extremely rare. Less rare, but still rare, are individuals who appear at birth to be one sex but in fact are the other sex.

I’m not trying to be argumentative. For virtually every single human being, biological sex is unambiguous, but for some very small number of individuals, it is not so easily discerned.

"Not easily discerned" does not mean "is in between", Toni.

Ovotesticular disorder can occur in both males and females. And in those couple of documented cases where an individual had one ovary and one testis (like seriously, I think there have been two), those individuals had other reproductive anatomy that was clearly of one sex. There has never been a single documented case of an individual human actually producing both eggs and sperm in the same body.

Actually that’s not accurate: there is at least one individual who has been documented as both having fathered a child and having given birth to another child. Yes, it’s extraordinarily rare and very difficult to wrap one’s mind around.

I did not coin the term intersex. Ordinarily children are not tested for their chromosomal make up at birth but only if there appear to be actual medical issues.

There are cases of a seemingly female child being born to discover when she fails to have menses or develop breasts that his testicles were retained inside of his body. In such rare cases, the child has been reared as a girl, as they appeared to be at birth. I’m certain that there are other configurations that are quite rare.

I think in virtually no case of a trans individual is such biological anomaly the underlying cause. Instead there seems to be differences in the structure of the brain.

Like you, I personally have concerns about puberty blockers and even more serious concerns about surgery on individuals who are not yet legally adults. At the same time, I am very much aware that it is an extremely difficult situation. I can only guess at how difficult it most be to be born with a body that does not match how you see yourself, as you know yourself to be.

 

[Oleg]

In my opinion, banning a medical procedure that may help some people because it may also harm others is a lazy or stupid policy response to an issue.

No medical procedure is being banned. It just simple recognition that a child cannot give informed consent on a procedure that will cause sterility and irreparable change their life.

The reports I have seen consistently indicate HB1125 prohibits health professionals from performing gender affirming care on minors. That bans access to that care from medical professionals in the state of Mississippi.

One of us is misinformed.

Oh, you're right. Forgot that "gender affirming care" means body mutlilation.

 

[laughing dog]

Oh, you're right. Forgot that "gender affirming care" means body mutlilation.

Gender affirming care may involve body mutilation, but it does not necessarily do so.

 

[Oleg]

Gays and lesbians often display gender atypical behavior when they’re young. How does the trans cult differentiate them from trans?

APA PsycNet

psycnet.apa.org

The current study drew a sample (2,428 girls and 2,169 boys) from a population-based longitudinal study, and found that the levels of gender-typed behavior at ages 3.5 and 4.75 years, although less so at age 2.5 years, significantly and consistently predicted adolescents’ sexual orientation at age 15 years, both when sexual orientation was conceptualized as 2 groups or as a spectrum. In addition, within-individual change in gender-typed behavior during the preschool years significantly related to adolescent sexual orientation, especially in boys. These results suggest that the factors contributing to the link between childhood gender-typed behavior and sexual orientation emerge during early development. Some of those factors are likely to be nonsocial, because nonheterosexual individuals appear to diverge from gender norms regardless of social encouragement to conform to gender roles.

 

[Bomb#20]

Actually that’s not accurate: there is at least one individual who has been documented as both having fathered a child and having given birth to another child. Yes, it’s extraordinarily rare and very difficult to wrap one’s mind around.

It sounds like you might be referring to this case:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7200380/

"An unusual case of true hermaphroditism is reported. The patient was a 32-year-old phenotypically male true hermaphrodite. Histology of his removed ovary suggested that ovulation had, at some time, occurred. He had also fathered a child and this is believed to be the first case of a cytogenetically proved true hermaphrodite who is fertile as a male."

The guy was a chimera -- two sperms and two ova fused in utero. So he had a functional testis and ovary; but I think the phrase "phenotypically male" means he had no uterus. The case is claimed to be unique in various cites, and if there's another case where the person also had a uterus and gave birth, my googling hasn't turned it up.

 

[Bomb#20]

The argument generally goes "(1) Well, you can't say male and female are completely different categories, because intersex people exist. (2) The existence of intersex people demonstrates that sex isn't binary, it's a spectrum. (3) Because sex is a spectrum, nobody can actually know for sure who is male and who is female and who is in-between. (4) Since nobody can tell what sex anyone is, we have to rely on their gender identity to prove who they really are. (5) Therefore transwomen are literal women and transmen are literal men"

The problem is that (1) is false. People with DSDs certainly exist, but their condition does NOT make them "in between" the two sexes of male and female...

It's an illogical argument even if we define male and female so (1) is true. Consider:

"(1) Well, you can't say fat and thin are completely different categories, because medium-BMI people exist. (2) The existence of intermediate people demonstrates that thickness isn't binary, it's a spectrum. (3) Because thickness is a spectrum, nobody can actually know for sure who is fat and who is thin and who is in-between. (4) Since nobody can tell what thickness anyone is, we have to rely on their thickness identity to prove who they really are. (5) Therefore anorexia patients are literal fat people."

So if sex really is binary then you're right that (1) is false, and that's a problem; but I wouldn't call it the problem. The problem is that (4) is idiotic. It's self-contradictory drivel on a level with "Everything has a cause; therefore there must be an Uncaused First Cause, God."

The circumstance that we lack an objective criterion for some category does not magically turn anybody's subjective opinion into an objective criterion.

 

[Toni]

Actually that’s not accurate: there is at least one individual who has been documented as both having fathered a child and having given birth to another child. Yes, it’s extraordinarily rare and very difficult to wrap one’s mind around.

It sounds like you might be referring to this case:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7200380/

"An unusual case of true hermaphroditism is reported. The patient was a 32-year-old phenotypically male true hermaphrodite. Histology of his removed ovary suggested that ovulation had, at some time, occurred. He had also fathered a child and this is believed to be the first case of a cytogenetically proved true hermaphrodite who is fertile as a male."

The guy was a chimera -- two sperms and two ova fused in utero. So he had a functional testis and ovary; but I think the phrase "phenotypically male" means he had no uterus. The case is claimed to be unique in various cites, and if there's another case where the person also had a uterus and gave birth, my googling hasn't turned it up.

I think this might be the case. My memory was that the individual both fathered a child and also gave birth but it's been some years so I could be mis-remembering. I don't remember it as a pubmed article though....

OK: I think I had read the Wiki or something similar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_hermaphroditism

Fertility[edit]​

The gonad most likely to function is the ovary.[12] The ovotestes show evidence of ovulation in 50% of cases.[13] Spermatogenesis has only been observed in solitary testes and not in the testicular portions of ovotestes.[14][13] According to a 1994 study, spermatogenesis has only been proven in two cases.[15] One of the two cases, having XX,46/XY,46 mixture had fathered a child.[16]

It has been estimated that 80% of cases could be fertile as females with the right surgeries.[6]

Documented cases of fertility[edit]​

There are extremely rare cases of fertility in "truly hermaphroditic" humans.[15][17]

In 1994 a study on 283 cases found 21 pregnancies from 10 true hermaphrodites, while one allegedly fathered a child.[15]

As of 2010, there have been at least 11 reported cases of fertility in true hermaphrodite humans in the scientific literature,[4] with one case of a person with XY-predominant (96%) mosaic giving birth.[18] All known offspring have been male.[19] There has been at least one case of an individual being fertile as a male.[16]

There is a hypothetical scenario, in which it could be possible for a human to self-fertilize. If a human chimera is formed from a male and female zygote fusing into a single embryo, giving an individual functional gonadal tissue of both types, such self-fertilization is feasible. Indeed, it is known to occur in non-human species where hermaphroditic animals are common.[20] However, no such case of functional self-fertilization or true bisexuality has been documented in humans.[14][10]

​

 

[laughing dog]

I appreciate that there are important and valid concerns on all sides of gender affirming care. But I don’t think outright banning its use fir a group is a humane or rational policy. In my opinion, clear standards/ guidelines driven by science and psychology are a better way to address the issue.

 

[Emily Lake]

In my opinion, banning a medical procedure that may help some people because it may also harm others is a lazy or stupid policy response to an issue.

Let's be a bit more clear here. We're talking about banning a cosmetic procedure that may or may not help some people, and has not been shown to have a long-term benefit. It's also the case that these cosmetic procedures cause harm to otherwise healthy bodies, and increase the risk of a whole lot of conditions, regardless of whether those cosmetic procedures boost the mental health state of some people.

In effect, you're objecting to a law that says "doctor's can't amputate the limbs of MINORS with BIID, because some of those MINORS will grow out of their BIID, and it would be better if they had all their limbs. But if an ADULTS wants to have a limb amputated to help their mental health. that's on them."

 

[Emily Lake]

Actually that’s not accurate: there is at least one individual who has been documented as both having fathered a child and having given birth to another child.

Proof please. I cannot find this by googling.

I find 11 cases of "true hermaphrodites" having become pregnant, but none of those produced sperm.

 

[Emily Lake]

Actually that’s not accurate: there is at least one individual who has been documented as both having fathered a child and having given birth to another child. Yes, it’s extraordinarily rare and very difficult to wrap one’s mind around.

It sounds like you might be referring to this case:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7200380/

"An unusual case of true hermaphroditism is reported. The patient was a 32-year-old phenotypically male true hermaphrodite. Histology of his removed ovary suggested that ovulation had, at some time, occurred. He had also fathered a child and this is believed to be the first case of a cytogenetically proved true hermaphrodite who is fertile as a male."

The guy was a chimera -- two sperms and two ova fused in utero. So he had a functional testis and ovary; but I think the phrase "phenotypically male" means he had no uterus. The case is claimed to be unique in various cites, and if there's another case where the person also had a uterus and gave birth, my googling hasn't turned it up.

I would also say that this is the only recorded case of a true hermaphrodite that was fertile as a male, all other cases of fertility were female. And in this case there is suggestion that he had ovulated at some point, but no direct observation of it, it is still hypothetical. This person did NOT give birth.

 

[Emily Lake]

The argument generally goes "(1) Well, you can't say male and female are completely different categories, because intersex people exist. (2) The existence of intersex people demonstrates that sex isn't binary, it's a spectrum. (3) Because sex is a spectrum, nobody can actually know for sure who is male and who is female and who is in-between. (4) Since nobody can tell what sex anyone is, we have to rely on their gender identity to prove who they really are. (5) Therefore transwomen are literal women and transmen are literal men"

The problem is that (1) is false. People with DSDs certainly exist, but their condition does NOT make them "in between" the two sexes of male and female...

It's an illogical argument even if we define male and female so (1) is true. Consider:

"(1) Well, you can't say fat and thin are completely different categories, because medium-BMI people exist. (2) The existence of intermediate people demonstrates that thickness isn't binary, it's a spectrum. (3) Because thickness is a spectrum, nobody can actually know for sure who is fat and who is thin and who is in-between. (4) Since nobody can tell what thickness anyone is, we have to rely on their thickness identity to prove who they really are. (5) Therefore anorexia patients are literal fat people."

So if sex really is binary then you're right that (1) is false, and that's a problem; but I wouldn't call it the problem. The problem is that (4) is idiotic. It's self-contradictory drivel on a level with "Everything has a cause; therefore there must be an Uncaused First Cause, God."

The circumstance that we lack an objective criterion for some category does not magically turn anybody's subjective opinion into an objective criterion.

Of course (4) is wrong. But try convincing a true believer of that.

My point is that within this context, there isn't even support to get to (4), it fails within the very first assumption.

 

[laughing dog]

In my opinion, banning a medical procedure that may help some people because it may also harm others is a lazy or stupid policy response to an issue.

Let's be a bit more clear here. We're talking about banning a cosmetic procedure that may or may not help some people, and has not been shown to have a long-term benefit. It's also the case that these cosmetic procedures cause harm to otherwise healthy bodies, and increase the risk of a whole lot of conditions, regardless of whether those cosmetic procedures boost the mental health state of some people.

In effect, you're objecting to a law that says "doctor's can't amputate the limbs of MINORS with BIID, because some of those MINORS will grow out of their BIID, and it would be better if they had all their limbs. But if an ADULTS wants to have a limb amputated to help their mental health. that's on them."

For clarity's sake, you and the Mississippi legislature are substituting your views for appropriate care over those of parents and health care professionals who know the person in question. In essence, you and Mississippi legislature are willing to have someone endure possible life-endangering stress because of fear they might make a wrong decision or just one that you disagree with.


I think putting reasonable safeguards on the administration of gender-affirming care is a much more humane policy than placing an unilateral ban on the care for minors.