Anti-trans organizations have said that their position against gender affirming care center on "protecting kids." Now, a Florida judge has allowed them to proceed with their next target: trans adults.


Several weeks ago, a federal judge in Florida halted a ban on gender-affirming care for transgender youth, declaring it likely unconstitutional. Yet, transgender adults were also heavily impacted by the law: 80% of gender-affirming care providers for trans adults in the state were forced to stop. Consequently, many found themselves forced to flee the state, temporarily or permanently, in order to access care. Those forced to stay clung to the hope that the provisions targeting them might also be overruled. However, those hopes suffered a setback when the 11th Circuit Court determined that discriminating against transgender individuals in healthcare would be allowed, at least in the short term. Relying on this verdict, the Florida Judge Monday declined to block the sections affecting trans adult care. Now, the precedent has been set for adult care bans, a stark contradiction to some anti-trans activists' assurances that their sole aim was to "protect children."

Earlier this year, Florida passed SB254. The bill did not only prohibit gender-affirming care for transgender youth, but also casted stringent requirements for care on trans adults. Specifically, the laws bars nurse practitioners from administering care and mandates that providers distribute inaccurate medical forms, laden with misleading narratives, suggesting treatments are experimental. This was a substantial change, as the vast amount of trans adult care is provided by nurse practitioners. A representative from a clinic in the state, SPEKTRUM Health, estimated that 80% of such care would be affected. Further, the new informed consent form dictates a pre-requisite of "social support" before a trans individual embarks on care, despite many trans adults losing social support from their families after they transition. Though the initial discussion centered on the effect of the bill on trans youth, trans adults across the state suddenly saw their prescriptions dropped by their providers as a result.


read more: https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/no-longer-about-kids-florida-judge

  • ThereRisesARedStar [she/her, they/them]
    hexbear
    1
    9 months ago

    When you get to decide who can run and mandate tbat only one ideology can be represented do you think that's a free election or a fair one?

    You know anyone who is eligible can run right?

    It cannot on any level represent the people because only candidates the state approves of can run. That isn't how it works in democracies. It is why Cuba is not free or democratic because...it's an authoritarian state like China is.

    That isnt true, but if it was,

    Why do these nondemocracies have higher approval than democracies? Why do more of their citizens say they're in democracies?

    • @GreatGrapeApe@reddthat.com
      hexbear
      1
      9 months ago

      The eligibility is directly determined by the state and they will not permit non-socialists from running which means it cannot be free or fair. It's literally part of the definition of what free and fair elections are. So no not everyone can run. In fact ONLY socialist can run which is why the elections are fraudulent.

      Citizens in non-democracies frequently lack the free speech to oppose the government openly so things like an approval rating in Cuba mean nothing except to indicate the people who are foolish enough to think they are real.

      Do more Cubans think they live in a democracy? Could they give their actual opinion without reprisal? No they cannot.

      Cuba is an authoritarian state with no real democratic element. Im not sure how you don't know what "democratic" "free and fair election", and "authoritarian" means but there you go.

        • @GreatGrapeApe@reddthat.com
          hexbear
          1
          9 months ago

          Do you need me to cite a dictionary for you? Seriously your issues have been regarding definitions of commonly used words in political philosophy.

          If you need sources they are the OED and the original Cuban constitution as well as the most recent constitution of 2019. In those places you will find the meanings of the terms "authoritarianism", "free and fair elections", and "democratic". In the Cuban constitutions you will find the laws regarding eligibility.

          This is not anticommunist shit. These are factual statements regarding Cuba that you would understand if you had any formal education in political philosophy. Im fairly positive you have none given what you have demonstrated here.

            • @GreatGrapeApe@reddthat.com
              hexbear
              1
              9 months ago

              Im going to do this piecemeal because my phone sucks. Here's your first bit:

              "The socialist system that this Constitution supports is irrevocable"

              Right there you have everything needed to prove the state is authoritarian as you cannot propose a new system. It is clear as day.

              How many more overt examples do you need or can I suggest you just audit poli sci 101 on line? You likely do not need to watch more than two-three classes to learn how far off the mark you are.

              • ThereRisesARedStar [she/her, they/them]
                hexbear
                3
                9 months ago

                So people can directly vote in that portion and that makes the system authoritarian?

                What if they voted "you cannot advocate for exterminating x minority" would that also make it authoritarian?

                It seems to me you're pointing at direct democracy and screaming authoritarian because it doesn't align with what you would have voted for.

                • @GreatGrapeApe@reddthat.com
                  hexbear
                  1
                  9 months ago

                  What makes it authoritarian is the fact that you cannot change the structure of government from socialism to a different system if that is what the masses want. Authoritarian states are labeled such due to the structure of their systems.

                  No that would not make a government authoritarian as it does not impact the structure of the government.

                  No Im not talking about direct democracy because only the Kurds in Syria have anything approaching that.

                  When the state decides who can run and who can run in opposition to others that does not permit fair elections as you can easily choose weak opponents for the candidates you want in office. Cuba DOES NOT have free elections or fair elections because of this.

                  If you can't replace the government it is authoritarian. If you can legally fix elections, as Cuba can, you are not democratic.

                  There are currently no socialist nations that are not authoritarian. That could change but right now every one is to some extent.

                  As an aside you are using a lot if words that you very clearly do not know the meaning of. You can fix that.

                  • ThereRisesARedStar [she/her, they/them]
                    hexbear
                    2
                    edit-2
                    9 months ago

                    What makes it authoritarian is the fact that you cannot change the structure of government from socialism to a different system if that is what the masses want. Authoritarian states are labeled such due to the structure of their systems.

                    They could pass a constitution that doesn't say the socialism is an integral part of cuban justice. They just didn't.

                    Did it occur to you that there is a very important reason for this, connected to why Cuba is more free than your country?

                    As an aside you are using a lot if words that you very clearly do not know the meaning of. You can fix that.

                    Are you upset by me describing a constitution made from the grassroots and passed by a vote among the entire population as direct democracy? Because Cuba is a mixture of representative and direct democracy but in this case it was entirely direct democracy.