The suit is the first by an attorney general against an individual doctor for allegedly violating a restriction on gender-affirming care for minors.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued a Dallas doctor Thursday accusing her of providing transition-related care to nearly two dozen minors in violation of state law.
Paxton alleged that Dr. May Chi Lau, who specializes in adolescent medicine, provided hormone replacement therapy to 21 minors between October 2023 and August for the purpose of transitioning genders. In 2023, Texas enacted a law, Senate Bill 14, banning hormone replacement therapy and other forms of gender-affirming care for minors.
To add to the pile of evidence that this is all just hateful bigotry and has nothing to do with children’s safety, cisgender children can still legally access these drugs, but not for the purpose of transitioning genders. The same drugs can still be used to delay aggressive puberty, which is a standard and relatively common usage, as well as other conditions that might affect a cisgender child. But a trans child who needs the same drugs for a different reason, will be told too bad, you’re out of luck. So two children could walk into the same doctor’s office and one will be turned away and forced to suffer through their gender dysphoria, with permanent repercussions for their mental health and body, and the other child will be treated with the drugs they need to be treated with. It’s absurdly unfair, unequal, and purposefully harmful to a vulnerable population.
Tbf there are all kinds of medicine that are ok for one thing but not another, cocaine for instance.
Are you implying that it’s okay for cisgender folks to get HRT and gender-affirming care, but it’s not okay if for transgender folks to seek the same care? Explain to me how your assertion here applies to what we’re talking about.
Yeah. Cocaine is ok if you’re trying to get an edge on the competition as a stock trader. But, not ok if you’re black.
The difference being, in this case, that this type of hormone treatment is a medically responsible and widely accepted treatment for both things.
I don’t disagree with you at all.
It wasn’t me arguing against the post, just thinking out loud basically.
I like the philosophy aspect of finding where the line is.
I do it with like everything.
Figure this one out, usually people find things that are fluffier less edible, but a squirrel and a rat are essentially the same animal but people will totally eat squirrel, but I don’t ever hear of people commonly eating rat even when other food is available.
The fluffiness actually works against it.
A pigeon and a dove are the same damn thing only differently colored.
Most people wouldn’t eat a pigeon, but they would eat a dove or a squab
The fluffiness of the animal is kind of irrelevant? Rats and pigeons are generally perceived as potential disease carriers, regardless if they are more likely than squirrels or doves to carry.
The problem is that you’re not the one deciding what drug to prescribe. The government is.
And even if you were, shouldn’t the decision on “where to draw the line” be made by the parent, the child, and their doctor?
We can have all the philosophical conversations you want but we have people who are being affected by this right now.
Doctors aren’t prescribing cocaine for the hell of it, though. Same thing with puberty blockers. Think we can trust doctors’ judgment when it comes to the drugs they prescribe.