As a Libertarian (yes, I said it ... take a drink), it goes without saying we're all for LGBTQ equality, like most things, well before it become 'politically correct' in the left. 
I.e., I'm glad we've seen the Civil Rights Act and others finally applied by the SCOTUS, and the US Congress is moving forward. However, just as Dave Chappelle points out ... the 'T' can leave some of us at 'unease' when it comes to 'more complex' details. We have to be logical, we have to be educated, and we have to debate ... by, of and for the experts. It's not bigotry to debate some aspects. And no, some of us aren't ignorant either.
There are 2 things that gets me upset, and one was on display recently with the Surgeon General. But before that, I want to revisit the other things. In both case, the US Media has become the biggest, most ignorant 'echo chamber.' And it's getting old. It's like talking to 1st graders. I want to be objective, scientific and want medical debate to continue.
1) Manning's Hypocrisy Revisited
I won't go back into the commuting of Manning's sentence, or what she was convicted of (and yes, I refer to her as 'she' -- just like Cosell called Muhammad Ali ... Mohammad Ali).
But one thing that makes me cringe, and I'm sure it makes a lot of our Transgender military who serve, is every time when Chelsea Manning's lawyers bring up the fact that she is 'too ill' and 'too frail' to serve time in jail, due to complications of her Transgender Reassignment Surgery. While the US military debates on the 'readiness' of those who have undergone such surgery, and how they will handle such in specific roles, every time Manning's lawyers speak such,
It is not 'bigotry' to point this out. Yet, if you do, it's labeled such. That needs to go, and even some transgender military personnel I have spoken to have no love for Manning for this reason, even if she's the darling of the US Media.
2) Psychological Impact v. Chemical/Physical Impact Hypocrisy Front'n Center
Second, I won't get into the whole sociological debate over minors having state sponsored Gender Reassignment Surgery, but I will point out what I have a problem with.
Simply put ... the argument right now -- on 'both' alleged sides -- is that there will be an 'impact' of 'permanent harm' if we do/don't do something before a minor reach the age of majority, or even puberty. To purposely over-simplify left v. right American politics for arguments sake ...
LEFT: Permanent Psychological Harm if not done before puberty -- there is mounting evidence that has been presented and studied that there is permanent, psychological harm that will be done to a minor if they are not given chemical or even physical changes before puberty. That if we allow them to 'develop' that they will be unable to 'overcome' living the rest of their life with chemical changes, as well as physical, if they are not stinted or even 'modified' with chemical and physical changes, respectively.
RIGHT: Permanent Chemical/Physical Harm done if done before majority, let alone puberty -- there is the continued argument that has also been presented and studied, with many testimonies, that minors who choose the path of physical 'modification' any time before majority, or even chemical stinting of development before and through puberty, consider their chemical/physical harm to be permanent. Some call the physical 'modifications' as 'state sanctioned mutilation' under the UN definition when state funds are used to override the parents, although that could be considered more inflammatory.
Which brings me to ... it's not 'bigotry' to point this out. That 'harm' is being argued in both directions.
A Debate By, Of and For Doctors, Not the Masses
But the US Media would have us believe the alleged 'Right' is always wrong -- and I don't doubt there are just anti-LGBTQ members in that camp -- which brings me to Rand Paul who is definitely not a 'right winger.' He's an MD and a die hard Libertarian, so much so he criticized the Trump administration and those who supported him for not accepting to Electoral College and has repeatedly berated not just the right, but the left, for lack of support for his 'Justice for Breonna Taylor' bill (even if her supports stupidly attacked him recently, not realizing who he was).
At some point we literally have to recognize there is going to be alleged 'harm' any time we 'change' or 'not change' someone, one anyway someone looks at it. And we should not 'shutdown' valid debate. In fact, one of the counter-arguments to the many testimonials, like the one Dr. Rand Paul provided, was that the 14 year-old would have been 'happier' with her decision to undergo both chemical and surgery had she done it before puberty, instead of after.
What I'm looking for is some objective, empirical arguments, not this load of US Media 'bigotry' non-sense and 'darlings' in the US Media that they feel shouldn't be 'grilled' on what an MD considers is an important consideration for minors, especially when the arguments are to 'just go younger, pre-puberty.' It's a valid debate to be had, by, of and for doctors, like Dr. Paul.
And then there's the greater debate of the 'state knowing better than parents,' which is a whole other can-o-worms. I mean, which parents are 'correct' and which parents are allegedly 'politically/religiously/etc... motivated' in any direction?
E.g., the state that awards sole custom to the mom that divorces gets custody of a 4 year-old over the child's claimed general identity? (yes, at only 4 years old)
Transgender rights are not the same as ...
Minority, let alone Pre-Puberty, Transgender Rights
We need empirical evidence, and right now, there's 'anecdotal' on both sides. Although in that regard, without any evidence, I default to this ... don't change things when it comes to a minor, unless we're certain. But that's the Libertarian in me.
I.e., this is not like abortions where we understand the risks and have decades to showcase the impacts of why we must give the minors the right to choose their future for the next 18+ years. I'm for minority female control of their bodies, especially against the state's control (as well as their parents).
But now we're talking about ages well before a woman can even conceive, well before any 'age of anything,' pre-puberty. Everyone needs to understand this. It's not so simple.
But, of course, it's not politically correct, and politically correct is absolute now, even against empirical evidence to date in even some of the 'anecdotal' cases. I'm not a big fan of 'politically correct' rule. Otherwise ...
Case-in-Point (From My Field): We wouldn't use Lithium-Ion batteries for everything, and people wouldn't defend Elon Musk when he's critical of hydrogen any more than they did Thomas Edison when he was critical of Alternating Current (AC). It's about subsidies and narrative, instead of valid, scientific, technical or, in this case, medical debate.
We must be educated and objective ... to be free. Otherwise, we're just serving whatever is popular on-a-whim that lobbyists want the state to control and outlaw.
I.e., I'm glad we've seen the Civil Rights Act and others finally applied by the SCOTUS, and the US Congress is moving forward. However, just as Dave Chappelle points out ... the 'T' can leave some of us at 'unease' when it comes to 'more complex' details. We have to be logical, we have to be educated, and we have to debate ... by, of and for the experts. It's not bigotry to debate some aspects. And no, some of us aren't ignorant either.
There are 2 things that gets me upset, and one was on display recently with the Surgeon General. But before that, I want to revisit the other things. In both case, the US Media has become the biggest, most ignorant 'echo chamber.' And it's getting old. It's like talking to 1st graders. I want to be objective, scientific and want medical debate to continue.
1) Manning's Hypocrisy Revisited
I won't go back into the commuting of Manning's sentence, or what she was convicted of (and yes, I refer to her as 'she' -- just like Cosell called Muhammad Ali ... Mohammad Ali).
But one thing that makes me cringe, and I'm sure it makes a lot of our Transgender military who serve, is every time when Chelsea Manning's lawyers bring up the fact that she is 'too ill' and 'too frail' to serve time in jail, due to complications of her Transgender Reassignment Surgery. While the US military debates on the 'readiness' of those who have undergone such surgery, and how they will handle such in specific roles, every time Manning's lawyers speak such,
It is not 'bigotry' to point this out. Yet, if you do, it's labeled such. That needs to go, and even some transgender military personnel I have spoken to have no love for Manning for this reason, even if she's the darling of the US Media.
2) Psychological Impact v. Chemical/Physical Impact Hypocrisy Front'n Center
Second, I won't get into the whole sociological debate over minors having state sponsored Gender Reassignment Surgery, but I will point out what I have a problem with.
Simply put ... the argument right now -- on 'both' alleged sides -- is that there will be an 'impact' of 'permanent harm' if we do/don't do something before a minor reach the age of majority, or even puberty. To purposely over-simplify left v. right American politics for arguments sake ...
LEFT: Permanent Psychological Harm if not done before puberty -- there is mounting evidence that has been presented and studied that there is permanent, psychological harm that will be done to a minor if they are not given chemical or even physical changes before puberty. That if we allow them to 'develop' that they will be unable to 'overcome' living the rest of their life with chemical changes, as well as physical, if they are not stinted or even 'modified' with chemical and physical changes, respectively.
RIGHT: Permanent Chemical/Physical Harm done if done before majority, let alone puberty -- there is the continued argument that has also been presented and studied, with many testimonies, that minors who choose the path of physical 'modification' any time before majority, or even chemical stinting of development before and through puberty, consider their chemical/physical harm to be permanent. Some call the physical 'modifications' as 'state sanctioned mutilation' under the UN definition when state funds are used to override the parents, although that could be considered more inflammatory.
Which brings me to ... it's not 'bigotry' to point this out. That 'harm' is being argued in both directions.
A Debate By, Of and For Doctors, Not the Masses
But the US Media would have us believe the alleged 'Right' is always wrong -- and I don't doubt there are just anti-LGBTQ members in that camp -- which brings me to Rand Paul who is definitely not a 'right winger.' He's an MD and a die hard Libertarian, so much so he criticized the Trump administration and those who supported him for not accepting to Electoral College and has repeatedly berated not just the right, but the left, for lack of support for his 'Justice for Breonna Taylor' bill (even if her supports stupidly attacked him recently, not realizing who he was).
At some point we literally have to recognize there is going to be alleged 'harm' any time we 'change' or 'not change' someone, one anyway someone looks at it. And we should not 'shutdown' valid debate. In fact, one of the counter-arguments to the many testimonials, like the one Dr. Rand Paul provided, was that the 14 year-old would have been 'happier' with her decision to undergo both chemical and surgery had she done it before puberty, instead of after.
What I'm looking for is some objective, empirical arguments, not this load of US Media 'bigotry' non-sense and 'darlings' in the US Media that they feel shouldn't be 'grilled' on what an MD considers is an important consideration for minors, especially when the arguments are to 'just go younger, pre-puberty.' It's a valid debate to be had, by, of and for doctors, like Dr. Paul.
And then there's the greater debate of the 'state knowing better than parents,' which is a whole other can-o-worms. I mean, which parents are 'correct' and which parents are allegedly 'politically/religiously/etc... motivated' in any direction?
E.g., the state that awards sole custom to the mom that divorces gets custody of a 4 year-old over the child's claimed general identity? (yes, at only 4 years old)
Transgender rights are not the same as ...
Minority, let alone Pre-Puberty, Transgender Rights
We need empirical evidence, and right now, there's 'anecdotal' on both sides. Although in that regard, without any evidence, I default to this ... don't change things when it comes to a minor, unless we're certain. But that's the Libertarian in me.
I.e., this is not like abortions where we understand the risks and have decades to showcase the impacts of why we must give the minors the right to choose their future for the next 18+ years. I'm for minority female control of their bodies, especially against the state's control (as well as their parents).
But now we're talking about ages well before a woman can even conceive, well before any 'age of anything,' pre-puberty. Everyone needs to understand this. It's not so simple.
But, of course, it's not politically correct, and politically correct is absolute now, even against empirical evidence to date in even some of the 'anecdotal' cases. I'm not a big fan of 'politically correct' rule. Otherwise ...
Case-in-Point (From My Field): We wouldn't use Lithium-Ion batteries for everything, and people wouldn't defend Elon Musk when he's critical of hydrogen any more than they did Thomas Edison when he was critical of Alternating Current (AC). It's about subsidies and narrative, instead of valid, scientific, technical or, in this case, medical debate.
We must be educated and objective ... to be free. Otherwise, we're just serving whatever is popular on-a-whim that lobbyists want the state to control and outlaw.
Last edited:
