Missouri restricts adults from seeking gender-affirming care | Hacker News Reader

Missouri restricts adults from seeking gender-affirming care

businessinsider.com

22 points1attice18 comments

The linked Missouri Independent articles mention that the Missouri Attorney General belives that transgender therapies are "experimental." I'd like to point out that hormone replacement for trans people is older than heart transplants, LASIK, and Viagra, but we don't consider these three to be "experimental" treatments.

The ban on those with depression is a catch-22. Gender dysphoria CAUSES depression. If you have gender dysphoria and depression, then the emergency ruling means you can't get care. If you have gender dysphoria but not depression, a doctor could take that as your condition being "not that bad" and decide not to risk treating you. In my experience doctors are already extremely hesitant to treat trans patients with HRT.

The common ground, IMO, is getting government the fuck out of people's personal business. I support anyone's right to do what they want in life, as long as that individual doesn't impinge on another individual's liberty to make their own choices in life.

So… abolish the whole process by which we ok drugs as valid treatments?

Or abolish the whole process that enforces certain rules are followed in construction and operations - after all, anyone can "vote with their walley", do their own building and fire inspections, and just not go to the hotels/bars/clubs/appartement buildings/roads that are hazardously build.

I swear, libertarians' whole shtick falls appart if you think about it seriously for more than a few minutes in a wider context, yet still so many of them are everywhere.

Apartments, hotels, bars, and roads are not personal; they're public spaces and as such are rightfully subject to a public regulation.

If I want to pierce my ears, alter my genitals, collect pokemon cards, or drink 8 cups of coffee in the morning, that's none of your business.

If anyone thinks this overreach will stop with trans people, you're fooling yourself. They will not stop until they have their christofacist state, unless we stop them every step of the way.

Also, why is this flagged? Exclusionary changes to US state laws affect how people can move about and work within the US. This should be of concern to folks here.

This is flagged because there are — sadly - way too many transphobes on HN. Last week, I submitted two articles about a trans person who had just died (comic book artist, trans activist). One article title noted they were a trans activist; the other made no mention at all that they trans. Guess which submission was flagged in under 20-minutes?

I have no idea why, but HN and dang tolerate transphobia.

The text of the emergency regulation is here: https://ago.mo.gov/docs/default-source/press-releases/2023-0...

These seem to be very reasonable restrictions. They still permit access to pharmaceutical and surgical interventions if needed, but with some additional checks and balances, and a greater emphasis on informed consent.

On the whole, it reads like a list of things that practitioners should really have already have been doing.

These are not reasonable restrictions. If any of the clauses in section two are found to be true, then the care is considered unlawful. Many of these clauses are extremely broad, for example "Fails to ensure (at least annually) that the patient is not experiencing social contagion with respect to the patient’s gender identity."

Note that, unlike some of the other clauses, this isn't "with respect to a patient who is a minor," so this can be applied to adults as well. What does this clause even mean? Does a 30 year old trans person who has trans friends count?

As we've seen in the fallout after the overturning of roe v wade, doctors are extremely hesitant to provide care if they can get in legal trouble for it. Call it like it is, this is a chilling effect on all trans care.

"affirming"

When they came for my rights, where were you?

When they come for yours, where will we be?

We are right here. Supporting your right to modify your body, modify your consciousness with drugs/molecules, end or extend your life, go full cyborg, or whatever you want. Is that support reciprocated for the things I want to do? Genuine question.

What do you want to do?

I want to build a rifle that's 25 inches long, or a 51 caliber pistol. I want to shoot big fireworks on my own land on the 4th of July, as long as the noise and smoke doesn't carry over to my neighbors. I want to be free to risk maiming myself in a vehicular accident, if I choose not to wear a helmet or a seatbelt. I don't want anyone else to pay for my mistakes. I just want to be free to make them.

It is ideal, and there are a lot of assumptions regarding having a sense of responsibility. The trouble becomes when said sense does not exist and there is no recourse. You may very well want to do this:

> I want to be free to risk maiming myself in a vehicular accident, if I choose not to wear a helmet or a seatbelt.

But circumstances and the laws of physics will not always allow this:

> I don't want anyone else to pay for my mistakes.

Your vehicular accident may also end up maiming others. We do not exist in isolated mutually exclusive bubbles.

> I want to shoot big fireworks on my own land on the 4th of July, as long as the noise and smoke doesn't carry over to my neighbors.

I'm all for you launching fireworks, but I don't know how you'd prevent the noise and smoke from carrying over to your neighbors. You might be better saying "...as long as the noise and smoke are reasonable".

agreed

As long as you can't sue me for injuries you sustained when I hit you in an accident. If you're willing to "man up" and actually pay for your right to not wear a helmet or seatbelt - fine. If you're expecting me to pay for that right, well, we have a problem.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com