GOP Hopeful Asa Hutchinson Wants Parents To Make Medical Decisions for Trans Kids
The crowd at the socially conservative FAMiLY Leadership Summit was not receptive, and Glenn Beck likened the Arkansas governor's performance to the crash of the Hindenburg.

On Friday, a full six months before the 2024 Iowa caucuses, six Republican presidential aspirants gathered at the FAMiLY Leadership Summit in Des Moines for the party's first candidate forum of the 2024 election cycle, presented by Blaze Media. Throughout the day, each of the candidates spoke to recently ousted Fox News broadcaster Tucker Carlson, who said in introductory comments with event organizer Bob Vander Plaats that he hoped to "find out who they are" and judge their "instincts" rather than simply determine their beliefs. One candidate's professed beliefs stirred the crowd against him, but he demonstrated an admirable commitment to limited government.
After Sen. Tim Scott (R–S.C.), Carlson's second guest was former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson, a long-shot candidate currently polling at 1 percent in a statistical tie with "Someone else." Carlson's first question related to Hutchinson's 2021 veto of H.B. 1570, an Arkansas bill that would have prohibited medical professionals from providing any medical treatment to minors related to gender transitioning, including puberty blockers and gender reassignment surgeries. It also did not include a grandfather clause, meaning any minors who were on hormone therapy when the law went into effect would either have to stop or seek treatment across state lines. (State lawmakers overrode Hutchinson's veto, but the law is currently on hold pending litigation.)
"Have you reassessed your view on it since then?" Carlson asked.
Hutchinson stood behind his decision. "What I believe in is that parents ought to raise their children," he said. "I believe that God created genders and that there should not be any confusion on your gender. But if there is confusion, then parents ought to be the ones that guide the children."
To be clear, Hutchinson is no progressive radical on the issue: He accused some public schools of "pushing transgenderism" and said, "If there had a been a bill that said you should not ever have transgender surgery as a minor, I would sign that in a minute, because no parent should be able to consent to that permanent change." (Under American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines, surgery for minors should only be pursued "on a case-by-case basis" and include "multidisciplinary input from medical, mental health, and surgical providers as well as from the adolescent and family.")
But unexpectedly for a candidate running to be the leader of the Republican Party, Hutchinson offered a qualified yet nuanced defense of transgender care for minors from the perspective of limiting the role of government and supporting the rights of parents.
"I believe in a limited role of government," Hutchinson said. "I don't think that California ought to be able to tell parents, 'You need to have gender-affirming care for children.' The government should not do that. And in the same way, let's keep the government out of it unless it's [an] extreme case, and let's let parents guide the children."
A skeptical Carlson pushed back, "You believe it's treatment. You believe, I suppose, that people can change their sex. Because if you don't believe that, you wouldn't call it treatment, would you?"
Hutchinson paused before carefully continuing, "I wouldn't make that decision in my family, and I don't believe that taxpayers' funds should be used for transgender surgery through Medicaid or Medicare or in our military." But, he continued, "I'm saying one simple fundamental thing, that we have to have a debate as to what's the limited role of government."
The crowd was largely unreceptive to the argument. Blaze Media founder Glenn Beck compared Hutchinson's performance to the Hindenburg disaster. But Hutchinson's defense was laudable, especially for the fact that it ran contrary to the direction his party and its base are moving. After all, if both a child's parents and doctor decide that a form of medical care is appropriate, then what business is it of the state government to stand in the way?
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
There is zero reliable studies regarding a medical benefit for GAC. Even the long term studies from the Netherlands, the country who first supported GAC has shown the long term trends are either a wash or actually slightly worse. Activists like WPATH rely on bad studies of shirt duration, 9 months, or discard people who detransition. The one fact we have for certain is GAC causes long term medical support over someone's entire life due to the harm of drugs and surgeries. Calling GAC medical care is to push an activist point of view not supported by actual medical research. And doing so during an explosion of and encouragement of a social contagion is just evil.
Multiple groups have shown doctors and therapists giving referrals for GAC after less than 2 hours of discussion with a patient. Yet no question about this from Reason.
Make money online from home extra cash more than $18000 to $21000. Start getting paid every month Thousands Dollars online. I have received $26000 in this month by just working online from home in my part time. every person easily do this job by.
just Open This Website.....> https://aprichs.blogspot.com
You're also leaving out the fact and ceding the fundamental theoretical ground that the initial, pristine, cherry-picked case studies that were supposed to bolster the underlying theory were catastrophic failures.
Kinda like saying we tried removing a couple peoples' of appendices to cure their head lice but the long term studies show appendectomies as being between either a wash or slightly worse than doing nothing at treating head lice (which aren't themselves in any way dangerous and can be readily treated with all kinds of completely benign treatments).
If they had to literally drop kids into meat grinders to get the conclusions they want, they would. It really is a revivalist virgin volcano-sacrifice-style cult.
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,400 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,400 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link———————————————>>> http://Www.OnlineCash1.Com
I am making really good money (80$ to 100$ / hr. )online from my laptop. I was greatly surprised at the same time as my neighbour advised me she changed into averaging $100 however I see the way it works now. sd370 I experience mass freedom now that I’m my non-public boss.
Everybody should start earning money online by
using this website……. https://www.dailypro7.com
“Puberty blockers”
This is what the LGBT lobby wants doctors giving children without their parents consent.
Does it need to offend rational sensibilities more than this for people to stop this madness?
I have just received my 3rd paycheck which said that 16285 American Bucks that i have made just in one month by working online over my laptop. This job is amazing and its regular earnings are much better than my regular office job. Join this job now and start making money online easily by
.
.
.
.
just use this link…………………… https://Www.Topearn7.Com
A parent says to a psychologist, “my child thinks they’re a dog, can you help her?”
The psychologist says, “that would be conversion therapy which is banned here.” Just buy some dog food and resign yourself to accept that she will never parent a child in a biological family.
I agree. These days there's widespread agreement that Rose Kennedy's lobotomy, pushed by her family, was not a valid medical treatment...and there is more evidence on the side of its being effective for some at least arguably medical conditions than there is for this gender reassignment business. So just because the family says to do some kind of surgery doesn't make it right.
There is zero reliable studies regarding a medical benefit for GAC.
At this point, this is where Jesse will take the studies that he doesn't like and nitpick them to death and/or accuse the authors of bias or fraud, so as to ignore them; and then he will take the studies that he does like and accept them uncritically, so as to elevate them and declare them as "the only ones that are reliable". We know this because that is exactly how he treated all the various studies surrounding COVID.
The correct position on scientific studies, IMO, is that no single study represents "the TRUTH" on ANY subject, whether it is GAC or COVID or anything else. Every scientific study represents merely a small incremental increase in our collective knowledge of the world. Every scientific study is not without flaws or beyond reproach, even the ones that align with our preferences. The critical and HONEST reader will digest ALL of the evidence and critically evaluate it to arrive at a rational defensible position based solidly on the facts and the evidence. And if the facts and the evidence disagree with our preconceived biases, again the honest reader will re-evaluate his/her own biases in that light, not try to change reality to fit the biases.
But, it is too much to ask Jesse to do that.
I was going to start citing research in this area, but it is truly vast and would take too much time and effort to cite it all here. Needless to say, Jesse is lying. For those who are truly interested, here is a good link to start:
Puberty suppression in adolescents with gender identity disorder: a prospective follow-up study (2011)
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20646177/
This is one of the follow-up studies from the Netherlands which looked at the experiences of youth after transitioning. As is to be expected, their outcomes improved in some ways, but did not improve in other ways. Meaning, of course, that GAC is not a silver bullet that solves all problems. Well duh.
This paper has been cited over 100 times and if you scroll down to the bottom of that link you will see some of those citations, many of which are ones which criticize this paper and would be considered to be "on Jesse's team" in this field. So you can read them for yourself.
Here are some other studies of note: (references in the comments to follow)
Longitudinal impact of gender-affirming endocrine intervention on the mental health and well-being of transgender youths: preliminary results (1)
Psychosocial assessment in transgender adolescents (2)
Transition Regret and Detransition: Meanings and Uncertainties (3)
Basically this article is a critical look at the concept of "detransitioning".
I expect most of you to ignore all of this and just carry on with your preconceived biases and ideology, but don't say you weren't informed.
Reference (1)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7191719/
Reference (2)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1695403320300424
Reference (3)
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-023-02626-2
Conclusions
The rates of anxiety, emotional and behaviour distress, depressive symptomatology, as well as the feeling of gender dysphoria of these transgender patients were similar to those of non-transsexual population of the same age after one year of CHT initiated at ages between 14-18 years old.
This is unintentionally hilarious on so many levels, one hardly knows where to begin to untangle the joke.
Let me guess. Jeff pushed the same studies i already mentioned as being low value due to the same issues I actually already mentioned.
https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/science-vs-cited-seven-studies-to
https://www.thefp.com/p/the-beginning-of-the-end-of-gender
Jeff can never actually read or react to a statement made and instead rushes to push propaganda already dismissed as evidence. Ignoring the statements already discussed.
Jeff is a pedophilia loving leftist who wants nothing more to sexualize kids while permanently harming them.
1.5M in lifetime costs, from WPATH even, for no medical benefit. Good work Jeff.
Just want to point out:
I cite original research.
Jesse cites news articles and Substacks.
Research into a subjective state of mental health with no controls. Meanwhile we should ignore anecdotal evidence of serious harm from irreversible procedures to children.
There were controls. Read the article.
And yes it is possible to scientifically study even a relatively subjective state of mind such as anxiety or depression.
Bullshit there were controls. I already addressed it.
"Do they send their control group to counseling, lots of doctors visits and have their parents join support groups? If the control group is not treated exactly the same except for surgery, it isn’t a fucking control for surgery."
Keep shilling for genital mutilation of children, jeffy. You are no different from any other religious fanatic.
Bullshit there were controls. I already addressed it.
They compared a group of kids who received GAC vs. a group of kids who did not (THE CONTROL), and they employed a statistical model to try to take into account the confounding variables of the study.
Maybe they should have had better controls. But no study is perfect, no scientific study requires perfection, and rejecting a study because it is not the ideal model of perfection is silly.
Keep shilling for genital mutilation of children
You know how you claim I am dishonest if I misrepresent your position? Remember that? This is where you are doing it to me.
Maybe they should have had
betterany controls.Fixed that for you. Their peers in the control group were not getting therapy and lots of attention from doctors.
You don't have to be "scholar" to detect bullshit. You just need a nose.
And I am not misrepresenting your position. You are the Reason commentariat's self-ordained High Priest of Transition Surgery for Children. If you don't appreciate the honorific, find a less offensive practice to compulsively defend.
I repeat:
and they employed a statistical model to try to take into account the confounding variables of the study.
And I do not "shill" for gender transition surgery. That is a lie. I do not advocate for it and I do not promote it. I believe it is a valid medical procedure that should be legal. That is different than actively advocating for its use.
And yes it is possible to scientifically study even a relatively subjective state of mind such as anxiety or depression.
I failed to address this piece of garbage. Anxiety and depression have measurable physical symptoms. They are far less subjective.
Jesus, they are studying "mental well-being", something that, by any definition, is completely subjective. On top of that, they are studying unhappy children suffering from depression and mental illness being given exactly what such children crave, lots of attention and affirmation that they are not crazy. Then they act smug and Science!-y when they reach the conclusion that kids are less likely to kill themselves when given body-altering surgery and pretend it has nothing to do with giving them lots of attention and affirmation. Do they send their control group to counseling, lots of doctors visits and have their parents join support groups? If the control group is not treated exactly the same except for surgery, it isn't a fucking control for surgery.
When the study cites, "Transgender youths experience high rates of depression and suicidal ideation compared to cisgender peers" as a given, they have already ceded the outcome. Consider that "transgender" has never historically been recognized as a scientific classification. And for good reason, as the state of "transgender" exists only in the mind and has no physical manifestation. Intersex is an actual classification, but I would guess that studies on individuals that have physical defects does not generate the necessary results because they are not bat-shit crazy.
I also can't express enough disdain for any scientist who writes "cisgender peers". It is a recently invented word intended to sound scientific by mimicking Latin medical terms. What is wrong with using "peers" other than it indicates that there is a normal state and transgender is an abnormal state.
It is even worse. The last "definitive" study cited by activists and pushed by WPATH ended the study after 9 months, before even the surgeries were completely healed from masectomies.
Europe is pulling back on it because long term studies show no benefit and detransition rates have doubled over the last 3 years. This is including the Netherlands which was at the forefront of GAC since the 1950s. In Britain a study showed the average therapy time before being given drugs or being declared trans was 2 hours. Walsh out of daily wire was able to get a gender dysphoria referral for 150 dollars in 45 minutes despite directly telling them he was not dysphoric. The nurse then told him she had to write dysphoria to get insurance to pay for it, ie fraud.
Europe is pulling back on it because long term studies show no benefit
Cite one of these studies, Jesse.
You were saying?
https://segm.org/ajp_correction_2020
In October 2019, the American Journal of Psychiatry (AJP) published a study from the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, and the Yale School of Public Health which reported that “gender-affirming" surgeries for gender dysphoric patients are associated with improved mental health outcomes (1). Looking at mental health utilization in the year 2015, a retrospective analysis showed that the more time passed since surgery, the fewer mental services were utilized by patients, with an average 8% reduction in mental health utilization for each year following surgery. From this, the study concluded that surgery has a beneficial effect on mental health, and that benefits continue to accrue over time. However, following a reanalysis of the data, this conclusion has now been officially corrected to indicate that there is “no advantage of surgery.”
Interesting that you link to this site. You complain about medicine being hijacked by activists? Well this site is run by nothing but activists.
Want some more?
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11930-023-00358-x
Results of long-term studies of adult transgender populations failed to demonstrate convincing improvements in mental health, and some studies suggest that there are treatment-associated harms. The purpose of this review is to clarify concerns about the rapid proliferation of hormonal and surgical care for the record numbers of youth declaring transgender identities and seeking gender reassignment procedures.
He wouldn't be our jeffy if he wasn't going to pick cherries.
Here is another article for you to consider.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamasurgery/fullarticle/2779429
And I actually like this article. Thank you for sharing it.
This is from the conclusion section:
I actually agree with this last sentence. Having puberty blockers or even surgery as a "first-line treatment" seems wrong to me. If GAC is to treat a mental illness such as gender dysphoria, then it stands to reason that there must first be a diagnosis of this mental illness, and that diagnosis would most likely involve some type of psychotherapy sessions.
And I also agree with the author when he writes that doctors should be making clinical recommendations based on medical evidence and not based on social justice arguments.
None of this however justifies banning the procedure. It only means that it ought to be tightly regulated and that it ought to follow a strict standard of care. Which I have advocated for all along.
I read Jesse Singal's critique of the Tordoff et al. paper. I will even cite is here, so that everyone can read it if they choose.
https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/researchers-found-puberty-blockers
A great deal of his critique is about the publicity surrounding the paper. That is irrelevant as far as the science is concerned. So I don't care.
He is sloppy and simplistic on deciding what is a "statistically significant" result or not. He claims that because 57% of the kids were suffering from severe depression before starting treatment, and 56% of the kids were suffering from severe depression after 12 months of treatment, that that is not a "statistically significant" result. And he would be right - IF there were no other confounding variables to get in the way. But there are, and the paper authors construct a statistical model to try to compensate for these confounding variables.
He claims many times in his critique that it's difficult to figure out exactly what Tordoff et al. did. Actually, the authors spelled out exactly what they did. In fact there is an entire section in the Supplement (which Singal claims to have read) dedicated to explaining the statistical model that the authors used.
And the rest of the critique is basically Singal saying "they conducted their study this one way, but they should have conducted their study this other way". Okay? There is no one single universally correct way to run a study. Scientific journals don't require one single standard to get published. They just require that you follow some very basic ground rules (informed consent and the like), and then explain exactly what it is that you did do. No one ever claimed that any study is perfect and the epitome of The Truth. It isn't.
These authors did a study, they found some results, and they presented their results based on the methods that they described. It doesn't mean the study is wrong, it doesn't mean that the authors are being deceitful, it just means that they advanced the state of knowledge in a certain way using a certain methodology.
And what is happening is exactly what happened with the COVID crap. Jesse is nitpicking every article that he doesn't like to find flaws in it, but I would love to see him apply that same attention to any article that has conclusions that he does like. It never happened with any of the articles surrounding COVID and I doubt it will ever happen here.
Jeff is a pedophilia loving leftist who wants nothing more to sexualize kids while permanently harming them.
This is just a cartoon villain-level insult at this point. It's not even slander because it is just so ridiculous.
There is a pattern to the things you defend. And it is creepy.
I defend liberty and I defend choice. Sorry not sorry that you find it creepy.
I reject the premise that there is one single universal standard for how to raise a child, beyond the NAP.
Part of being a libertarian is to defend the right of people to exercise their liberty in borderline cases. I definitely agree that GAC on minors is a borderline case. But I believe that parents should have the liberty to pursue that option under the right conditions. I am in favor of government regulations requiring strict application of a standard of care. But I am not in favor of outright banning it.
What I have come to notice, is that the more right-wing-oriented posters here seem to have two conflicting visions for government. They want a small and unintrusive government when it comes to “adult” affairs – taxes, regulations on business, gun rights, etc., which I assume is motivated by a belief that individuals know better than the government on how to spend their own money or how to run their own businesses. But when it comes to raising kids, they take the exactly opposite approach – they want a large and intrusive government to be injecting itself into the child-rearing process, motivated by an apparent belief that the government knows better than the parents on how to raise children. So they are in this weird position that, for example, they trust adults to know how to run their own businesses better than the government, but if those adults are parents, they don’t trust parents to raise their kids better than the government can. It is just strange to me.
You have just recently defended the choice to expose oneself in front of children or to read them books about masturbation as not being a violation of the NAP. It's fucking creepy.
I ain't right wing. I just acknowledge that communities have the Constitutional right to set standards of behavior. If you swing at me and don't hit me, I am going to kick your ass. I don't care that you didn't actually violate the NAP.
If you want to wear a dress and read to kids, I see it for the feint that it is. I don't care whether you want to molest a kid, or just to show them that weirdos can be fun too. I don't want my kids exposed to it. It's fucking creepy.
And anyone that writes "sorry not sorry" is a sophist douchebag.
I ain’t right wing. I just acknowledge that communities have the Constitutional right to set standards of behavior. If you swing at me and don’t hit me, I am going to kick your ass. I don’t care that you didn’t actually violate the NAP.
But that is a conservative point of view, that the state should enforce standards of moral behavior even if violating that standard does not violate anyone's rights.
The problem, though, is that you refuse to accept that there are rights that certain people think should be protected, while others think are meaningless. Things like the rights of children not to be abused.
Jeff is a pedophile but wants it to be legal. Nothing more.
This is of course a slanderous lie.
Is it? Your verbosity speaks otherwise.
*cough climate studies too*
It's a new religion for the left. I can't wait to see the indulgences for transitioning.
Sadly, we're not in a world where a nuanced position can work, because the left will take it and turn it into "The school can perform surgery on your 7 year old to turn him into a dog boy if that's how he feels today".
^This. How long was the ink dry on Obergfell before a couple of lesbians tried to sue a church for not hosting their wedding and the left began threatening to take away tax exemptions for churches who didn't toe the line? I think it was under a week if I remember right. Didn't they tell us we were crazy for saying Obergfell would result in men in women's locker rooms and competing against our daughters in sex segregated churches? Or that no one would be trying to add pedophilia to the LGBTQ alphabet (luckily, so far this one has gained even less traction than the trans issue, which is growing less popular not more like gay marriage has)? Not saying Obergfell should be reversed (unless the USSC ruled that permission isn't needed for anyone from the government to marry any other willing adult they want, except possible anti-incest laws, which I doubt covers very many people, biologically most people are turned off by close relatives)? But, I am saying taking a fairly benign ruling and trying to use it to square every circle is exactly what they have done since Obergfell. Which is unfortunate and has in many ways set back homosexuals and bisexuals acceptance (not that their pride parades etc hasn't also played a huge part in that). It's hard to claim you are one of the normies when you expect everyone to celebrate your choices and differences or else.
As a bisexual male, I think pride month is damaging, pride parades are disgusting and the whole trans issue makes me feel loathing towards the entire movement.
Freaking transphobic nazi republicans.... "let parents raise their kids"
It takes a village, people.
Unless that kid comes from a stripper, than its on its own.
I don't have a problem with Hutchinson seems to be getting at, here. For instance, if a crazy parent decided to send their kids into surgery to have them cosmetically look like a dinosaur because their kid was obsessed with Dinosaurs, I don't think that's a "decision" that should be "left up to the parents". At some point some fucking medical ethics need to come into play here. But at the core of what Hutchinson seems to be saying here is, we need a more parent-centric view how our children are raised, and a less state-centric view.
Reasonable people can disagree and what and which type of elective medical procedures can be performed on minors even with their parent's consent. But I think Hutchinson's comments can bring into the light the incredibly disturbing cases of schools hiding gender transitions, including social transitions from parents, and it's all considered forward-thinking life-saving medical care.
Oh, and not to mention all the bills sneaking through state legislatures that allow children to walk into a clinic and start getting sex transition care, including but not limited to surgery without parental consent.
You're also conveniently looking past the Crusading/Jihading "convert by the sword"/fatwa aspect of his argument too.
Gender can't be both binary, created by a divine creator, and a whimsical social construct. I don't entirely believe Hutchinson doesn't think he's being an insane optimist, and, if true, I agree that he's an insane optimist.
Seems to me the major problem is with the medical professionals. They should be the ones trying to talk some sense into parents when they think their kid needs sex hormones or to become a dinosaur. And refusing to do procedures on minors that are untested or likely to do more harm than good.
You heard the Vanderbilt tapes? It’s a cash cow
Ugh. Can't they just go back to indiscriminately prescribing opioids and stimulants?
Tens to Hundreds of thousands for the surgeries, then a lifetime supply of hormone and other chem/pharm treatments all written thru the Gender Clinic
Interesting contrast. Doctors don't get money directly from writing prescriptions and the AMA and APA fail to take a hard stance on the state interfering in that relationship. Everyone in the chain gets paid for GAC, and the AMA and APA are up in arms.
Seems like the difference to medical professional associations is that the state shouldn't interfere in things that get doctors paid directly.
For the medical profession it creates a class of permanent patients as they will require a lifetime of medical maintenance, as their endocrine system has been trashed by GAC treatments. That it is tied up with a dogmatic view of pro- transgenderism which permits no skepticism.
God created sexes. Linguists created genders.
Hutchinson paused before carefully continuing, "I wouldn't make that decision in my family, and I don't believe that taxpayers' funds should be used for transgender surgery through Medicaid or Medicare or in our military."
Yeah, and by saying he's "no progressive radical", you mean he's not a center-left Biden Democrat here.
Make money online from home extra cash more than $18k to $21k. Start getting paid every month Thousands Dollars online. I have received $26K in this month by just working online from home in my part time.
Every person easily do this job by just…………..>>> http://www.Richcash1.com
Official employee of DeSantis campaign:
https://twitter.com/CryptidPolitics/status/1679880785963151365?s=19
More legal trouble in Trump Land as another Trump aide could face charges in the classified documents investigation.
Nominate @RonDeSantis and we won’t have to deal with this legal drama — and we will win.
That's one hell of an optimistic view. It's also possible they know what the left is like and are just using it to score points now and worry about the left's radicals later.
Meatball's campaign is flailing. His only hope is if his buddies in the "Intelligence Community" sabotage Trump's plane and try to pin its downing on the Russians.
So we let Christian Scientists make decisions about their kids health care when it comes to Cancer, or a severed artery? Do we let meth beads make decisions about their kids care when the kids get into the stash? Do we let cult members make decisions about their kids health when it’s time to marry their 11yo to the cult leader or drink the koolaid?
We prevent irresponsible idiot parents from causing irreparable physical harm all the time
We prevent irresponsible idiot parents from causing irreparable physical harm all the time
There is no valid argument that Lennie didn't love the puppy.
The government does in many cases step into parental decisions, but that is done on an individual case basis. The courts can decide which parent has custody and the degree of custody for children whose parent are divorcing. Courts can remove a child from parental care, again on a case by case basis. What Asa Hutchison is objecting to is a broad government mandate.
After all, if both a child's parents and doctor decide that a form of medical care is appropriate, then what business is it of the state government to stand in the way?
jeffy is Joe Lancaster? It now makes so much sense that I take so much umbrage with his articles.
The argument is just facile and sophomoric. It can be applied to any and every form of child abuse. "Expert" and parent agree to abuse a kid, no problem!
If an abused kid insists he doesn't want his mother in jail and wants to keep living with her, and a doctor agrees that she has never threatened the child's life, then what business is it of the state government to stand in the way?
Why does children matter in this case? If I beat my wife, girlfriend, hoe, business associates… and they all agree to continue to do business with me, as long as I get a doctor to sanction everything, it’s all hunky dory? If a mother can unequivocally beat her son and walk as long as he doesn't die, why should we prosecute *any* assault where the victim acquiesces?
Is that *you’re* idea of libertarianism?
At least they headed off deaf parents' keeping their deaf kids from getting cochlear implants so they could continue participating in deaf culture.
So who decides whether a type of medical care is appropriate? Joe Biden? Donald Trump?
Do you understand that the entire point of surgical transition is to prevent the body from ever healing itself? A commitment to a lifetime of surgical intervention. How can it ever be considered ethical to perform such a surgery on an individual who cannot possibly understand the ramifications?
Are you aware of procedures like organ transplants? Certain cancer treatments? Often, these also require lifetime maintenance.
And look, there are three options for who decides what is a valid medical procedure or not:
1. Parents decide
2. Experts decide
3. Politicians decide
Option 1 is the libertarian option, and it's also what Asa Hutchinson chose. The Team Red audience didn't seem to like it, not there and not here. Option 2 is the status quo, and used to be more accepting by all people, but just look at the comments to see how many people here hold "experts" in low esteem. So that leads to Option 3, which is the authoritarian option, and increasingly what both Team Blue and Team Red are favoring.
Where do you stand?
Are you aware of procedures like organ transplants? Certain cancer treatments? Often, these also require lifetime maintenance.
Another fucking straw man. Those are all procedures that rely on the body to heal itself. They won’t give you a transplant if you are not healthy enough to heal.
The rest is all straw as well. I am not Team Red, although I definitely hold “health experts” in low esteem at this point. Why do you always deflect to arguing against the imagined enemies in your fat head?
Oh FFS. I am asking you where you stand, not assigning a position to you.
So which will it be?
1. Parents decide
2. Experts decide
3. Politicians decide
I don't think you're all that Libertarian.
The true Libertarian position would be thus:
The parents and "experts" (sometimes experts aren't all that expert, but are really snake-oil salesman quacks) decide what to do with the child.
If a relative or neighbor decides that the parents and "experts" decide that the parents are harming the children, they can respond by either suing the parents and "experts", or maybe even outright kill them -- after all, there would be no laws against murder in a sufficiently Libertarian society.
If the family of the parents disagree with the murder, or if they just went straight to suing, then the family chooses an arbiter, the neighbor chooses and arbiter, and the two parties agree on a third arbiter. If one party or the other disagrees with the arbiter's decisions, then they can sue the arbiters, and repeat the process ad nauseum.
If that isn't sufficient, the two parties can start a bloody feud, and they can fight it out until they get tired of the bloodshed and loss of money. Everything will settle out in the end.
There's this funny notion that if there's little-to-no law, then in that "anything goes" environment, anyone can do anything without any consequences. People forget that in an "anything goes" society, everyone gets to do anything they want -- and eventually the society is going to settle down to things that are acceptable and forbidden.
Since we don't live in a Libertarian society, we are in a position to argue over the balance of morals and laws with our Local, State, and even Federal lawmakers. If a practice becomes widespread enough that people discover it's very horrible, then it's up to the lawmakers to make it illegal, regardless of what the "experts" have to say about it (and in some cases, because other experts have a major disagreement with the original "experts" -- there are plenty of examples where experts disagree with experts.)
Someone won the Nobel Prize for Medicine for introducing the "lobotomy" as a medical procedure. Many experts said it was great! And the few experts that opposed it were ignored. Lobotomies are banned in this day and age, and rightly so.
Are you aware of procedures like organ transplants?
Very much so, in fact enough to know that using organs from a biological male doesn't work well in a biological female.
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2018-03-donor-recipient-male-female-transplant.html
Biological sex differences can have far-reaching, clinical consequences, as illustrated by organ transplant outcomes. Men and women who receive donated organs can have different rates of transplant rejection, in some cases influenced by the sex of the donor. In general, the influence of biological sex on transplant outcomes has not been rigorously studied and largely underappreciated. A new study by investigators at Brigham and Women's Hospital assesses what is currently known about the influence of biological sex differences, possible mechanisms that may explain discrepancies between rejection rates for male and female recipients and what questions remain to be explored in future studies.
That's nice.
It kind of refutes your point that "gender" is fluid.
Those also aren't elective procedures. They treat actual biological illnesses that would otherwise cause the biological death of the child in question. And even those sometimes aren't recommended by physicians because the child will have no quality of life and likely die anyway. Failing to mutilate the genitalia of a young pre-pubescent child poses absolutely no risk whatsoever to that child's biological health. Treating an illness is not like cosmetic surgery regardless of how much you want to fuck little boys, cytotoxic. Sorry.
Besides, organ transplants undergo extensive background and health checks, and the aim is to eventually wean them off care. The same with chemo. It isn't to create a medical condition that requires lifelong maintenance, it's to eventually create a state of homeostasis that either requires very few medical interventions or none at all.
Those also aren’t elective procedures.
If GAC is applied as an elective procedure then I would view that as wrong. I think it could only be justified as a valid medical procedure if it were to treat a diagnosed disease state. And yes that can include mental health as well as physical health.
A major problem with GAC being applied to minors is that it's well known that something like 90% of the children, if left alone to go through puberty and to work out their feelings, end up deciding they're comfortable with the gender they were born with after all.
GAC destroys the lives of the 90% in an attempt to save the lives of the 10%, with a treatment that is still highly controversial, in no small part because the treatment permanently disfigures the body, which is particularly traumatizing when the person decides they were wrong about the transition after all.
How about the child decides at 16 or 18? You can't vote or drink but you can mutate your body right?
What age do you draw the line Jeff?
Didn't many parents agree to the treatments of that pedo doctor from the US gymnastics team? Maybe we should let him out of jail, since they agreed with his medical decisions to molest their children.
After all, if both a child's parents and doctor decide that a form of medical care is appropriate, then what business is it of the state government to stand in the way?
As a writer for Reason, Joe, people might mistake you for a libertarian. Let me explain what business it is of the state’s: When defective parents or corrupt doctors advocate mutilating a child and making risky, permanent, unalterable changes to an immature human, the state has the moral authority to defend that child. So does “the village”, take your pick.
Censorship should be between the tech companies and the Biden administration official they're consulting with!
Also, will White Mike Liarson check in? This article again disproves his “fact” that gender “affirming” surgeries aren’t performed on minors.
Laursen probably muted the article.
It's not happening, and if you try to prevent it, CHILDREN WILL DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
After all, if both a child's parents and doctor decide that a form of medical care is appropriate, including genital mutilation and letting the kid take home his 3 piece package in a jar, then what business is it of the state government to stand in the way?
Maybe it's time to revisit our position on banning Muslim female genital mutilation. After all, if parents have the right to approve surgery to remove genitalia for "gender dysphoric" children, then why shouldn't we accept Muslims and their cultural traditions for their gender affirming care?
After all, if both a child’s parents and doctor decide that a form of medical care is appropriate, then what business is it of the state government to stand in the way?
Libertarians for euthanizing the mentally retarded!
“No progressive radical” GOPers for ice pick lobotomies.
Libertarians for euthanizing the mentally retarded and lobotomized.
Don’t say slippery slope end around Roe v. Wade.
For sound economic perspective go to https://honesteconomics.substack.com/
Reason in 20 years: All hormone therapies for minors should be available over the counter!
Hasn't that always been their position (that drugs should be legalized and available)?
Not possible covid prophylactic.
I thought it will be "Let all the transgender illegal immigrants in" no borders, no sex! As they snort their over the counter cocaine
my son snorts his cocaine on the counter
Spinning and out-of-context nuancing aside, the default position for ALL liberty-loving people should be that government stays out of ALL personal and family decisions unless there is an overriding public necessity for law-making; and then the laws should be very clear, explicit concerning intent and specific concerning punishment. Government’s main function should be to enforce laws that protect each person’s individual equal rights under the Constitution, and only go outside of that when there is an overwhelming consensus among the citizens of a need for a law. There is no such consensus now concerning abortion or gender medical intervention for minors.
I think this is about right. As much as I am disgusted by the idea of treating children this way, as long as there is no consensus on the issue it's going to be a mess and laws in a few states aren't going to fix it. Somehow more people need to be convinced that it is a terrible idea. I'm not sure how that happens.
This isn’t a discussion regarding adults but lifetime consequences of a child. Just like we wouldn’t rationalize sleeping with a child as being possibly beneficial because some people believe so.
When as much of the public and medical profession thinks it's OK, I have doubts about whether laws will do more good than harm. Arkansas bans trans stuff for minors, then maybe other states react by subsidizing it more (for a hypothetical example).
I agree. I would go even further and say that it ought to be the default libertarian position that in borderline cases, to err on the side of liberty rather than more government. I don't *like* the idea of kids having their genitals surgically removed. But I also understand that I am not in their position, neither in the kids' shoes nor in the parents' shoes, and it would be hubristic of me to insert myself into their situation and declare my opinion to be more valid than theirs.
Like when you spent 3 years advocating for the government forcing people to wear utterly useless paper masks outdoors or take an experimental drug that turned out to have absolutely no efficacy in the prevention or treatment of the illness it was supposed to prevent and treat as a condition of occupying public space or having a job, cytotoxic, you lardass fat piece of shit?
Hmm. I don't recall ever advocating for the *government* to force people to wear masks or to get vaccinated. You are as usual full of shit, just as much as when you call me cytotoxic.
Bears in trunks, Jeffy?
On the other hand, various States disagreeing on what is correct law and what is not is a major way we come to a consensus on what kinds of law should be passed.
We get to compare what happens in both the most and least restrictive States, and over time, adjust our laws accordingly.
Here is the WPATH SOC-8 standard of care for anyone who is interested in actual facts:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/26895269.2022.2100644
Of note is Chapter 6, which specifically deals with GAC on adolescents.
Also of note is that WPATH's adolescent tranny care regime has been repudiated by European regulators because it has shown no benefit that exceeds the risk.
I have to make two observations that should be kept in mind when discussing GAC.
First, WPATH is by no means an impartial organization in this subject. They have motivation to put their most favorite treatment options in as favorable a light as possible.
Second, for all the talk about "careful guidelines" that WPATH has created, there's little evidence that people advocating for GAC are following what procedures WPATH have put forth. Indeed, there's even a well-publicized case where someone was able to get a prescription for gender "affirming" care even though he said straight-up that he doesn't have gender dysphoria".
The issue is that the numbskulls in the audience have convinced themselves that the parents who support gender affirming care for kids don't really have their kid's best interests at heart, and are just supporting their transition as part of some kind of complicated virtue signaling ploy. This is nonsense, of course, the reason parents support gender affirming care for their kids is because they sincerely believe that treatment will help them live better lives.
Conservatives remind me of those hardcore socialists who literally can't imagine someone who doesn't believe in Marx's account of how society works, so they assume anyone who supports the free market is just kissing up to the rich. Anti-trans conservatives are so in thrall to their ideology that they literally can't imagine what it is like not to be. Their ideology tells them that transgenderism is absurd, so they assume everyone else must agree with them that it is absurd and just be pretending to go along with it for nefarious reasons.
The fact is, parents who support their trans kids are doing so out of love and a desire to help their children live a good and rewarding life. The fact that some people believe that it is absurd and damaging to do so is not sufficient reason to stop them. In a pluralist society people differ widely about what they think is absurd and what they think is best for themselves and their children (ironically, the same people who think the government should ban gender-affirming care would probably throw a fit if the government banned spanking). This is especially true considering that the evidence shows trans kids remain trans as adults, are happy with their decision, and are happier with their bodies than they would have been if their body had undergone puberty normally.
Unneeded surgical and hormonal interventions are not "care."
And trying to change your apparent gender is not "gender affirming."
As a libertarian though, the choice should be left with the parents. Public schools should stay out of it, and neither intervene nor steer students toward it.
Well said.
The heart of the matter here is the lack of a pluralistic outlook when it comes to raising kids.
I've noticed this too when it comes to the Drag Queen Story Hour discussions. They will often say things like "Taking kids to Drag Queen Story Hour is inappropriate." As if there is one single universal standard for what is an "appropriate" way to raise a child or not!
It sure seems to me that they are utterly convinced that they and only they know best how to raise a child, and that government must impose that viewpoint by force if necessary in order to 'protect the kids'.
Try not to conflate so hard, jeffy. Your Freudian slip is showing.
It's hilarious that cytotoxic the pedophile actually falls for shreek's performance art and unironically goes along with it.
Yeah lardass, it's always been illegal to sexually abuse children, whether yours or somebody else's. We have rules in place for that because children are not capable of fully exercising their rights independently. There are very few things that warrant state intervention in child rearing. Beating your kids, fucking your kids, or paying a psychotic quack to cut their cock off all qualify.
Except GAC is a valid medical treatment to treat a diagnosed disease state.
So were lobotomies.
Now we know better.
And there are many signs that gender "affirming" care is the modern fad equivalent to lobotomies back in the day.
parents who support gender affirming care for kids don’t really have their kid’s best interests at heart, and are just supporting their transition as part of some kind of complicated virtue signaling ploy
You might have a point if that were the objection. But it is just another straw man argument. Try harder.
Don't tell him we have evidence of schools hiding transitions from parents. It would ruin his entire strawman.
I don't agree with schools hiding medical decisions from parents and I never have.
I love that you put together a whole pro-grooming sock after you got your Sarah Palin's Buttplug account banned for posting dark web links to hardcore child pornography, shreek. I rarely give you anything but well-deserved scorn and vitriol, but this truly is brilliant performance art, in its own sick way.
I can just picture you whispering into the ear of a frantically crying 8 year old little boy as you ram your cock up his ass "It's OK sweetheart, daddy's doing this because he loves you..."
Jehovah witnesses and Christian scientists who deny life saving blood transfusions and other similar treatments also think they're loving and supporting their children, does that mean they have the right to deny emergency medical care for their children?
It should be noted that for the most part they can but the medical professionals can also accuse them of abuse and then it is the hands of the courts. Not the best answer by far, but it does recognize that even heartfelt beliefs may end up in harm that even loving parents didn't want and that at times there does need to be a remedy for these.
If GAC were in the category of faith-based healing, then that would be at least a step in the right direction. Because faith-based healing isn't illegal.
If GAC were legal, and someone later wants to allege fraud or abuse, then that's fine. Let them have their day in court.
Why just limit it to just the Courts? Courts aren't the only way we work out law, after all.
And leaving it up to the Courts in many ways is a lousy way to develop the law for something. The Courts take things on a case-by-case basis, and often leave many questions on the table that need to be addressed. And since they are divorced somewhat from elections, they aren't as accountable to their constituents -- so they are in a position where they sometimes make the wrong decision.
What a lovely, well-reasoned and thoughtful comment. It is very out of place here, as I can see by the long string of hidden comments by folks I've previously placed on Mute due to their reich-wing fanaticism. I'm sorry they've come after you for speaking the truth.
The issue is that the numbskulls like you have convinced themselves that genetic science doesn't matter, sex only exists in our minds, biology and reproductive science be damned.
If parents were really supporting their kids out of love and not pushing them towards transgenderism, they would tell them the hard truth that sex, like race, like species, is immutable. A boy can certainly wear dresses and play with dolls, but that doesn't change him into a girl.
Once upon a time, girls who liked to play sports were called "tomboys" and it was a normal thing. Now I have heard more than one parent telling me their tomboy daughter has been pushed and encouraged to be trans by their peers, school, and other sources. This is ridiculous.
Here is a photo of Megan Fox's sons, and Charlize Theron's adopted boys. Do you think they all spontaneously went trans on their own?
https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1679761609885982720
"Now I have heard more than one parent telling me their tomboy daughter has been pushed and encouraged to be trans by their peers, school, and other sources"
That's what happens when you don't ever move outside of your right-wing whiskey-tango bubble. Perhaps you should begin socializing with people who have an IQ over 12.
The insidious thing about the trans movement is that it really only makes sense if there are rigid sex roles -- but we've been told all our lives that there aren't really any roles, and that boys can play dolls and girls can enjoy playing with trucks.
Now, all of the sudden, a boy who plays with dolls is "likely" a "girl" and a girl who likes trucks is "likely" a "boy".
Make up your mind: do gender roles exist, or don't they? I side with don't, in no small part because I've enjoyed many traditionally female activities over my lifetime!
The fact that you doubt this demonstrates that you don’t ever move outside of your left-wing bubble. Perhaps you should begin socializing with people who have an IQ over 12. Are these people fictional? They don’t exist?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/kayla-lovdahl-sues-doctors-for-pushing-her-to-get-transgender-operation/ar-AA1d9oMx
https://www.foxnews.com/media/detransitioner-chloe-cole-announces-lawsuit-hospitals-pushing-medical-mutilation
And you weren’t aware there has been an absolute explosion in the number of girls now claiming to be boys? (You can google it - I would add a link myself but too many links trigger the moderation filter).
Assuming that people only disagree with you because they are stupid and ignorant is the laziest, most idiotic way to argue about politics.
Really? A 5 year old knows the gender he/she want to be, and the parents are acting out of love? Or you know the parents that won't let their baby be called a he/she is out of love?
Parents helping teens you can make the argument..possibly. But pre-teen and below, it's the parents insanity. "My two year old boy knew he was ++ so I helped him"
What a crock
More like hopeless. Twice the charisma of Mike Pence is still zero charisma.
OK, accepting (for the sake of discussion) the premise that you can mutilate or hormonally change someone for the purpose of improving their mental health:
Where are the studies which show the harm of waiting until the kid is 18 or 21 before doing “gender affirming care”?
Did they look at a “control group” of adults who had these “procedures” and find that they had worse mental health?
Or what about kids who were assured that they could choose “gender affirming care” as adults, but meanwhile they'd have to wait? Do these kids have worse outcomes than those who get the “treatment” right away, as minors?
I'd say that's probably the biggest problem here. There is no good evidence about any of those questions. People are going full speed ahead with this without knowing what the outcomes will be years down the road.
Even more insane is the fact that in the US we seem to be ignoring the experience of many European countries who have slowed way down on the childhood transitioning stuff because there were way too many regrets and negative outcomes. The kids suffering gender dysphoria are not typically just normal kids otherwise, they tend to have other serious psychological problems. Depressed teenagers are the last people who are going to make good long term choices, but when something is suggested as the solution to all their problems, they are likely to embrace it.
Agree with everything you wrote here. You won't hear the negative stories in our news.
Also, plenty of people smoke tobacco because *they,* at least, think it improves their mental health. I wonder what would happen if tobacco became available only by prescription, with the prescriber getting paid a bunch of money for supervising the patient?
Would we get studies showing the mental-health benefits of minors smoking tobacco?
Make money online from home extra cash more than $18k to $21k. Start getting paid every month Thousands Dollars online. I have received $26K in this month by just working online from home in my part time.
Every person easily do this job by just…………..>>> http://www.Richcash1.com
Breaking News: Parents make better parents than the state!
After all, if both a child's parents and doctor decide that a form of medical care is appropriate, then what business is it of the state government to stand in the way?
Because batshit crazy "parents" like Charlize Theron will chase clout and virtue signal at the expense of their kid. THAT'S why. And I say this as an AnCap.
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,200 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,200 dollars,...OPEN THIS DETAIL>..............GOOGLE WORK
"After all, if both a child's parents and doctor decide that a form of medical care is appropriate—"
Under no set of circumstances is it "appropriate" to chemically or surgically butcher a child in an attempt to change that child's sex.
Prelude: I don’t care who’s going pee-pee in what bathroom (although as a man this probably matters less to me), I support the right of any adult of sound mind to seek the treatment they believe is best for them, and the only reason we have an argument about “men in women’s sports” is because the establishment is lying and saying that mutilated men are somehow “women.” If we simply redefine the leagues as “having a Y chromosome” and “not having a Y chromosome,” then they will be restored to their original purpose, and nobody is excluded. What the PTB’s are pushing right now is like saying “OK, you can bring a flashlight to play flashlight tag” and a bunch of lunatics show up and say “My bazooka identifies as a flashlight, you must accept me, or else you’re a bigot and therefore you are BAD!”
All that being said…
Let us set aside trans issues for a moment and consider another situation. Let’s say there’s a 6 year old child. They’re very right hand dominant and kind of awkward with their left side (I certainly was at that age). And then the child irrationally feels their left arm and leg are somehow inherently bad and they should not have them. Most of us, at least the honest people, would recognize that as completely insane and not mentally healthy. What we would hopefully NOT do is amputate the perfectly healthy limb(s) of a 6 year old. We’d probably help them with therapy, or maybe a drug for emotional disorders.
Amputating the healthy limbs of a child over a bunch of bull crap is unambiguously, CLEARLY a form of child abuse. If that’s the kind of choice “libertarians” want to give parents, then I’m out on the philosophy.
Children should be kept out of the sex and gender butcher shop for more or less the same reasons we do not – and should not – permit ANYONE - not even their parents or guardians - to beat, mutilate, molest, rape, or murder them.
It is a truly f**ked up society that says a child cannot get a tattoo, have a smoke, or even take a sip of beer/wine — yet stunting their growth and mutilating their genitals somehow gets a free pass.
.My pay at least *****/day.My co-worker says me!I’m really amazed because you really help people to have ideas how to earn money. Thank you for your ideas and I hope that you’ll achieve more and js receive more blessings.OPEN THIS DETAIL>GOOGLE WORK
Zero surprise that Republicans aren't actually against government intervention of personal decisions or for parental rights. They are for those things when it suits their agenda only. I agree that Hutchinson has a sane take on this issue.
Asa Hutchinson is like sawdust in dog food. He's just filler. His chances of actually becoming president are the same as the dog eating the sawdust thickened dog food. Debating what he means/meant in a pointless interview of him is kind of silly. Mutilating kids is a horror, and just because this guy emotes about it differently than some other random guy is meaningless. Might as well go out and interview homeless people on the plight of the poor on the Mongolian Steppes. Asa Hutchinson is on a vanity tour. If a few people wish him well, he thinks he's got a shot.
Sterilization as a mental illness treatment for kids is beyond barbaric. That any society would try to justify this (listening Reason writers who support this shit) is a sign of degeneracy.
Time Nick and Matt and Cuties Jacob either repudiate this crap or be forced from Reason asap.
Sterilization as a mental illness treatment for kids is beyond barbaric. That any society would try to justify this (listening Reason writers who support this shit) is a sign of degeneracy.
Time Nick and Matt and Cuties Jacob either repudiate this crap or be forced from Reason asap.