I am curious what your experience was like moving TX=>CA. I've been considering the same.
Both are dysfunctional in completely different ways, and both succeed in very opposite AND similar ways, too.
Regarding “homelessness and crime”, though— I have not noticed a significant difference feeling in safety in either. And in both I lived in the “city” (Dallas and Los Angeles) rather than sprawling suburbs.
I do feel actually a lot more worried in Texas about gun violence when I go back, and find myself always mentally making a note of exit plans in e.g. concert venues or malls back in Texas.
I personally prefer the people in California more than in Texas, but that’s a subjective value judgement. That’s ultimately what keeps me here.
I don't care if the rent in Texas was negative.
If you think that is Texas being anti trans then so be it I guess
Luckily it's not your opinion that is important regarding what healthcare should be done and what shouldn't. The medical consensus is that puberty blockers are an important part of trans healthcare. Denying this to children is equivalent with denying them other healthcare.
There are studies that show that hormone blockers don't actually decrease psychological distress (which is why England just said they're going to limit puberty suppressing drugs).
I think it's more interesting that people think children who can't possibly comprehend lifelong implications of most things are being given life altering drugs that don't have proper long term research is a good idea.
Well, it is the only valid one in the sense that there exists a medical consensus, an it is what I described.
> There are studies that show that hormone blockers don't actually decrease psychological distress
Mind sharing those studies?
> (which is why England just said they're going to limit puberty suppressing drugs)
I'm sure it has nothing to do with the conservative government desparately trying to distract their populace from the terrible job they are doing keeping the country running.
> I think it's more interesting that people think children who can't possibly comprehend lifelong implications of most things are being given life altering drugs that don't have proper long term research is a good idea.
Puberty blockers have been researched since the 80s. How much longer do you want studies to be done?
It's also funny that people like you always say "children who can't possibly comprehend lifelong implications of most things are being given life altering drugs", when the whole point of the drugs is to give them time. By delaying puberty those children have time to actually grow up and make an informed decision at the right time. You want to take that ability away from them, you want to condemn them to a lifestyle that is proven to drastically increase suicide rates. I'd like to know - is that a bug for you, or is it a feature?
As for the England thing you can deflect with the politics if you want, but many countries (some that pioneered dysphoria treatments) are cautioning against puberty blockers and that more research needs to be done.
https://ukom.no/rapporter/pasientsikkerhet-for-barn-og-unge-...
https://www.academie-medecine.fr/la-medecine-face-a-la-trans...
https://cass.independent-review.uk/publications/interim-repo...
And here is the study that I believe England is using where 43 out of 44 patients didn’t find any help with puberty blockers
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
And here is a paper critiquing studies that have been done and accusing them of bias to promote a viewpoint
https://accpjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.100...
You can use emotional arguments all you want but the science from what I see doesn’t show an overall help with puberty blocking drugs and I don’t think we do have enough long term evidence for people who aren’t hitting early puberty and are taking these drugs. What you’re mentioning from the 80s is like saying it’s totally safe to give everyone who wants chemo chemo because it helps people who have cancer. Puberty blocking drugs are useful in specific use cases, but giving them to kids who feel they are the wrong gender (which by the way, things kids say and what they actually feel are so freaking varied and again, most kids don’t know wtf they’re talking about until they’re much older) does not have full scientific consensus.
How about you provide some links now to the OPs original argument of all the things they mentioned? If not then I think we’re done here as you are just throwing emotional argument after emotional argument as if the choice is between a shitty under researched drug on pre pubescent children who aren’t experiencing early onset puberty (which is the usage you’re talking about from the 80s) vs full on suicide.
I looked into this study, and interestingly the authors come to the opposite conclusion you come to:
> Overall patient experience of changes on GnRHa treatment was positive. We identified no changes in psychological function. Changes in BMD were consistent with suppression of growth. Larger and longer-term prospective studies using a range of designs are needed to more fully quantify the benefits and harms of pubertal suppression in GD.
Given that you're misrepresenting the studies you share, yeah, we're done here.
Also, Texas even specifically cites puberty-blockers (which are reversible…) within the list of punishable offenses, so even Texas qualifies it as trans-healthcare, so your opinion is not particularly relevant.
https://www.npr.org/2022/05/13/1098779201/texas-supreme-cour...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/09/23/texas-tra...
The amount of homeless drugs and crime in the Bay made me immediately regret moving, but stayed for the $$$ for a bit.
Texas does many stupid things but so does CA and on top of that CA is expensive as hell to live in