Transgender treatment should be decided by your Dr, not a Politician
‘This is about identity’: Court challenge to puberty blocker ban begins
A group challenging a ban on puberty blockers has told a court that the decision was not – and has never been – about medication, and if it were, it would have been banned across the board.
“This is self-evidently about the identity of these particular users. It’s about who this very small group of young people are,” Victoria Casey KC told the High Court at Wellington.
“It’s about whether society will accept and affirm them as who they actually are, and allow them to access the wonders of modern medicine to help them realise their full potential.”
Casey is representing the Professional Association for Transgender Health Aotearoa (PATHA), which has taken a judicial review, challenging the Ministry of Health’s decision to ban new prescriptions for puberty blockers to treat:
- Gender dysphoria (where an individual’s gender incongruence has an adverse impact on their health and wellbeing).
- Gender incongruence (where an individual’s experienced gender and their assigned sex at birth persistently do not match) in children and adolescents.
Court documents say that if the new regulations were enforced, New Zealand’s position would be more restrictive than the United Kingdom, Sweden, Norway, and Finland.
RNZ
Ian Powell is 100% right…
GUEST BLOG: Ian Powell – High Court provides an opportunity for political puberty blocker ban review
…banning Puberty Blockers is a political decision, not a medical one.
I absolutely agree that there needed to be more checks and balances on Puberty Blocker use…
…and the Cass Review successfully argued that there needed to be more research into puberty blockers, but the Cass Review also took into account the regret of those who had surgically transitioned and that’s just not something we have a hell of a lot of in NZ. Puberty Blockers alongside other treatments are the main ‘transitioning’ in NZ, where as the Cass Review had to take into account the growing number ion mostly young women who had transitioned surgically.
The reality is we don’t have the problems the UK had because we don’t have that many surgical transitions.
So yes, we need more research into puberty blockers and how they impact while limiting surgical transition to only those who truly require it, but what the Government has done here isn’t a medical decision, it’s a political one.
Only you, your guardian, your psychologist and your dr should be involved in this discussion, what the fuck is the Government doing getting involved in medical care?
This is about using the resentment the middle class woke have generated and manufacturing that into a toxic culture war political attack on the trans community for the lowest gutter politics dog whistling.
This Government doesn’t give a shit about Trans Kids, they care about dog whistling to their reactionary right voters while pretending to care about Trans kids.
I am the first to argue that the way the Trans and their woke middle class allies have gone about trying to secure their rights has been counterproductive and deeply alienating, but we can’t allow their idiocy to doom an entire group of people.
This is a political culture war attack and the State shouldn’t be deciding your medical needs, that’s between you and your dr!
Their body. Their choice.
Independent Media is more important than ever, especially in the lead up to the Election. TDB is the largest Left Wing Blog in NZ and we have been operating for 13 years now. We get zero funding g from NZ on Air and we don’t have no rich backers. If you can donate please do so here or directly into our account – 12-3065-0133561-56
If the government is being asked to pay for treatments then it should be able to decide what it will pay for. While I can understand that peoples imagination will lead them to think all sorts of things I need better evidence than that before expecting the taxpayers to support their choices.
And the Government has always had a role to play in ‘age of consent/responsibility’ (such as drinking, voting, armed forces and driving), so does that not apply here as well?