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

    • GreatGrapeApe@reddthat.com
      ·
      1 year 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]
        ·
        1 year 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
          ·
          1 year 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]
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year 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.

            • GreatGrapeApe@reddthat.com
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

              • ThereRisesARedStar [she/her, they/them]
                ·
                1 year ago

                You can't choose your government, your top executive

                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.

                nor can you suggest changing what kind of Marxist state you want to achieve.

                Source? They've agreed that they're some kind of socialist, Marxists in a political context are all socialists.

                Cuba's constitution wasn't created by direcy democracy. Direct democracy would mean ALL Cuban citizens would be part of creating the constitution.

                Look into how it was made. Everyone was given the opportunity to contribute.

                Being able to vote doesn't make a state democratic when they can fix the vote like Cuba can.

                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.

                Even IF the USA went fascist it would still be freer than almost all socialist nations

                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.

                because the kinds of people attracted to socialism aren't interested in any opposing views or critiques as you are proving right now.

                "You're not agreeing with my misinformed and ignorant takes which proves how close minded you are"

                Record scratch, let's rewind to something

                Even IF the USA went fascist it would still be freer than almost all socialist nations

                Okay, but have you considered:

                olimar-point pikmin-carry-l pit pikmin-carry-r barbara-pit

                • GreatGrapeApe@reddthat.com
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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

                  • ThereRisesARedStar [she/her, they/them]
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Okay, but have you considered, in response to your claim that fascist governments are freer:

                    olimar-point pikmin-carry-l pit pikmin-carry-r barbara-pit

                    Alternatively, a source that should meet with your standards: link

                • GreatGrapeApe@reddthat.com
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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.