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.
Only as of very very very recently.
this is not true. Cuba's been ahead of the US consistently. LGBT rights are not a finish line labelled 'gay marriage'; they decriminalized decades before the US.
and their recent reforms are constitutional, not protections subject to whims of courts or simple parliamentary majorities. Cuba didn't roll over one day in the 2010s and suddenly decide 'we're pro lgbt now', these efforts are built on decades of acceptance & reforms, that only recently became entrenched & certified to the highest legal standard.
Cuba currently has the best records for LGBT rights but that has not always been true.
LGBT marriage was illegal until 2019 the constitutional changes made it legally possible. There was a civil union proposal from 2006? 2007? but that never got passed.
I have been active in LGBT rights since the 1990s. Trust me you aren't talking with someone who hasn't been paying attention or thinks it ends with marriage rights.
Better than the direction of the United States lol
Oh without question better than the USA.
I mean no, they've had a better record than most western countries for most of their existence, gay marriage legalization is just less important than other rights. Especially in places where legally recognized families aren't as heavily emphasized legally or economically.
Except they haven't?
Remind me when did any western country get all homeless and/or malnourished lgbt people into better conditions? When did they have universal Healthcare for trans people that wasn't gatekeeped to hell and intentionally underfunded?
When did Cuba do any if this other than the trans medicine which as I recall was in the mid 1990s.
Cuba being economically socialist has intersectional effects that massively benefit lgbt people in a way capitalism never can or will.
Cuba being authoritarian will mean people will necessarily be less free
What do you mean by authoritarian in this context?
A government that cannot legally be opposed or advocated for the complete replacement of with a non-Marxist system.
So a good thing then? Why would you want capitalism to return?
Hy would creating a system that does not respond to the desires of its population be good? What if it becomes obvious that socialism isn't working or if change is needed? The freedom to replace the government is critical.
How is crushing far right dissent not keeping with the desires of the population?
Then you modify socialism. As socialists keep doing rather successfully. Socialism is an iterative process after all.
If you started advocating the overthrow of your government what would happen to you?
If the people want a different system what is the justice in forcing them to maintain a system that does not work for them? Why should the jackboot of the socialist state crush the desires if the people should they desire something new?
Nothing would happen to me if I advocate for the overthrow if Im not advocating for violence. In the USA there have been communists running that advocated the removal and replacement of the government. There even is a specific right to completely replace the government in the constitution.
Pure
We literally have had candidates suggesting this who were not killed.
Sorry to burst your bubble but it is legal and possible in the USA.
No one cares if you have the right to impotently suggest it. If you actually make a serious attempt to do it though you're getting Fred Hamptoned.
Fred Hampton advocated violent revolution which has nothing to do with why he was murdered. Hampton was murdered because he effectively organized non-white neighborhoods and the LEO couldn't handle that.
Oh, you mean like that thing you'd have to do if you wanted to peacefully or otherwise transition governments and not just impotently complain? He got murdered for that? Huh.
But they don't, so there is justice in maintaining that system against a small amount of dissidents and foreign sabotage.
Historically this is how black communists get bullets and white communists get prison cells.
And remind me of the mechanism, and how it doesn't involve forces that are invested in the status quo?
In my hypothetical situation they do want the change and right now you cannot even suggest that due to the authoritarian structure of the state.
Okay, in the real world they don't, and they want the state to protect them from a backslide into an inherently violent economic system by targetting people who advocate for that system.
Ok and what if down the road the government gives way to severe corruption and no longer represents the people and they want a change?
The fact is Cuba is authoritarian because the mechanisms to remove the government do jot exist and the people have no say in the direction unless they agree with the state.
The exact same as any country where the government is severely corrupt and doesn't represent the people; it must be forcefully overthrown.
That's literally every country
I thought we were talking about Cuba, not the USA.
You might want to read the US Constitution as it literally has mechanisms for the removal of the entire government. Im bringing that up as a point because you are completely incorrect that "every" country has this.
We are talking about Cuba when we talk about how only people who agree with the state can run as in the USA there are socialists running who want to completely change our political structure. You can't do that in Cuba and that is why is is authoritarian and the USA is currently not .
Where are you getting that you have to be a socialist to run in Cuba?
The fact that the government does not permit any other party to run other than the communist party. There is no free and fair elections inCuba as a result of this.
Candidates don't run as part of a political party. It sounds to me like you're just repeating nonsense some anti-communist made up.
Can a candidate run that suggests ditching the pursuit of communism and adopting a capitalist state? If they can't then it's authoritarian.
We've established that I think you're definition of authoritarianism is good and democratic in this context
You can think it is good but you have a remarkably flawed concept of democracy if you think outright fixing elections is democratic in any way. What you are rejecting is the right of people to decide how they should be ruled. That brings about significant issues as to the legitimacy of said government.
Now you're accusing them of fixing elections? Geez.
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? 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.
You know anyone who is eligible can run right?
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?
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.
You've cited literally none of this. Just anticommunist make shit up hours.
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.
https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Cuba_2019
Cite the excerpts that support your claims.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Cuba isn't more free than the USA. You can't choose your government, your top executive, nor can you suggest changing what kind of Marxist state you want to achieve. Cuba is not free.
Cuba's constitution wasn't created by direcy democracy. Direct democracy would mean ALL Cuban citizens would be part of creating the constitution.
You seriously need to stop using words like "free" or "democracy" because you keep misusing them. Cuba is neither free or democratic. Being able to vote doesn't make a state democratic when they can fix the vote like Cuba can.
Even IF the USA went fascist it would still be freer than almost all socialist nations because the kinds of people attracted to socialism aren't interested in any opposing views or critiques as you are proving right now.
You have more say in your government because the bourgeois media apparatus doesn't manufacture support for their favorite candidates. All candidates get the same amount of advertising.. You also cannot choose your top executive in the US, where the executive holds much more power.
Source? They've agreed that they're some kind of socialist, Marxists in a political context are all socialists.
Look into how it was made. Everyone was given the opportunity to contribute.
Again, you still haven't provided any evidence that they fix votes, and you can't, because international election observers have looked at their election process and haven't found any evidence that they fix votes. Not letting fascists run isnt "fixing the vote" it is a democratically agreed upon overton window.
The US literally has 100, 000 people in concentration camps and has the largest gross and by capita prison population in the world, which is often used for slave labor. US cops extrajudicially execute 1000 people a year on the conservative side. The US supported apartheid while Cuba sent soldiers to fight against the apartheid government, but yeah, Cuba is the unfree place.
"You're not agreeing with my misinformed and ignorant takes which proves how close minded you are"
Record scratch, let's rewind to something
Okay, but have you considered:
Source on Cuba letting in elections inspectors? I can't find anything that suggests this and only sources that say the opposite. If it helps I can read Spanish.
Source for them not letting in inspectors:
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/3/27/cuba-hails-legislative-election-as-victory-despite-criticism
Okay, but have you considered, in response to your claim that fascist governments are freer:
Alternatively, a source that should meet with your standards: link
The DPRK is the least free society on earth right now if you consider that to be socialist and Hungary, which has fascists in the highest office, is freer than DPRK
Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge was quite possibly the least free society in history if you consider them socialist.
Keep crying your tears child because you clearly cannot argue from a position of knowledge. Tankies that take socialism as a religion are the WORST.
debate nerds and their consequences
The other person doesn't know what "democracy" means or understand how voting systems work so what civil way would you describe their uneducated views?
Let me guess, you get your propaganda about them from the country that killed 20 percent of Koreans so that it could keep its fascist puppet dictatorship going, or from its allies.
It is funny how ignorant you are on what fascism is while claiming I'm ignorant. Have you actually researched how fascism is distinct from liberal democracy? Because liberal democracies with fascists in office can exist without becoming fascist. Fascism is primarily a switch in the primary way of increasing profits changing from abstract surplus labor extraction to concrete surplus labor extraction. If you dont understand what that means, literally learn basic economics.
Let me guess, you consider the nazis to be socialist too huh? Honeslt this reeks of not knowing your history and falling for the "nationalist socialist" label. If you have a 101 knowledge of their history it is obvious that they weren't socialist.
People who take anticommunism as a religion to the point where they endorse fascism as an alternative are the worse. Consider:
It's more like you don't know what the words you are using mean so you keep asserting points that are fundamentally incorrect like Cuba being free or democratic ir having fair elections.
This isn't propaganda. Cuba is authoritarian like China is or Vietnam but unlike how DPRK is because that's not even socialist it's just a hereditary autocratic monarchy.
As ever, the only right liberals care about is the right to impotently complain.
What if the government ceases to be socialist due to corruption should the people not be able to correct that?
What if they decide they don't want to be socialist because it doesn't work for the majority?
Authoritarianism is never a positive situation in governance.
Impotently complaining does nothing to bring change "authoritarianism" is just a liberal euphemism for "resists our dominance"
Cuba is less authoritarian than most Western countries.
No it isn't. You do not have free speech to the same degree for example. You cannot attempt to run for office as a non-socialist. These are critical rights to look at when determining if a nation is authoritarian.
Cuba is one of if not the most authoritarian state in the Western hemisphere.
Yes it is
How are you quantifying that?
The fact that authoritarians can't run for office makes it less authoritarian, not more.
I disagree, I think the rights to food and shelter are far more critical.
The fact that you cannot oppose the government publicly or suggest replacing it makes it authoritarian. This isn't a debate about the definition of an authoritarian state. You either know it or you don't and right now it's very clear you don't.
The rights to Food and shelter are not relevant to the question of government structure. If Iran fed, sheltered and clothed their population as Islam requires they would not be less authoritarian given they are a theocratic state.
Except they have