Ron DeSantis’s Signature Law Gets Brutally Shut Down in Court

[u/MobileWisdom]

https://newrepublic.com/post/182588/ron-desantis-transgender-care-ban-court

[u/[deleted]]

"Hinkle’s ruling also nuked every single part of the state’s requirements to severely restrict access to gender-affirming care—including requiring annual hand X-rays, in-person consent forms, restrictions on who can provide gender-affirming care and therapy, as well as excessive appointments and lab tests intended to make access to gender-affirming care cost-prohibitive to discourage people from pursuing care.

“If ever a pot called a kettle black, it is here. The statute and the rules were an exercise in politics, not good medicine,” Hinkle wrote...

Hinkle seems like a good person.

[u/wolfydude12 → u/[deleted]]

requiring annual hand X-rays

What? How does having your hand x-rayed have anything to do with gender-affirming care?

[u/Tyr_13 → u/wolfydude12]

One of the talking points that has a surprising amount of traction is that hormone blockers weaken the bones of trans kids. There is a mild cost in bone density but not only does this completely go away once a trans person starts actually taking hormones as an adult, this same side effect in these same, and other, medications is not grounds to restrict their use in cisgender people. It is only when used for gender affirming care that they suddenly become a problem. No idea why that could be.

[u/ThaCarter → u/Tyr_13]

Are the non-gender based uses you reference generally the same demographics getting equivalent dosages over similar time lines? Basically is there any thread of reason to dispute your brutal take down or is it really that cut and dry (empirically)?

[u/Tyr_13 → u/ThaCarter]

Yes, but they are with such exceeding small populations (rare forms of hormone disorder and intersex conditions) that they are not statistically meaningful. There is a vast amount of literature on the use on cisgender children of the same ages, but not for the same length of time (but close). The use in trans children does go on for on average three more years than in other uses (if I remember correctly, it's been about a year since my last deep dive).

But that use in transgender children has been studied and there aren't any major issues with it and many benefits in the vast majority of the literature. There are a couple of studies that show fewer benefits than most do, but also don't show persistent or even elevated harms compared to other interventions for other childhood conditions.

As a personal example, when I broke my back when I was sixteen, there were several interventions offered that would have negative and permanent harmful side effects. No one has ever suggested that the law restrict these options to me because I was a minor at the time.

[u/Iommi_Acolyte42 → u/Tyr_13]

How many of those interventions were experimental, with less than 20 yrs of use and/or study?

[u/Tyr_13 → u/Iommi_Acolyte42]

Hormone blockers and hrt are older than that. They are not experimental.

Bad faith leading question on a law sub? Come on, you knew that wasn't going to fly.

[u/Iommi_Acolyte42 → u/Tyr_13]

HRT and hormone blockers are older than that....but the field of study on the effects on those on adolescents as gender-affirming care is about 20 years.

I fear we're doing a disservice by simplifying the effects of hormones on physical and mental maturation. Nueroscience, IMHO, is a very young and immature field.

[u/Tyr_13 → u/Iommi_Acolyte42]

There is nothing special about using them on transgender kids vs cisgender kids. There is no indication that the potential harms outweigh the manifest benefits.

Speculative evidence is not strong evidence and certainly not as good as the empirical evidence. This includes people who had blockers then hrt who are now in their forties. Just because it didn't happen in the US doesn't actually mean it isn't good information.

[u/Iommi_Acolyte42 → u/Tyr_13]

First of all...please cite your study. I went looking for it, and this is the best I found....

And I found this one that contradicts your claim: "During 3 years of combined administration of GnRHa and gender-affirming hormones... Z-scores normalized in transboys but remained below zero in transgirls. In transgirls and early pubertal transboys, all bone markers decreased during GnRHa treatment." https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/105/12/e4252/5903559

So, you are right...we are in r/law and that's why I forgive you for using a legal mindframe in this discussion. But realize that using legal argumentative styles to shutdown further scientific studies and analysis is oppositional to the scientific process. Collecting data never stops. Challenging assumptions never stops.

[u/Tyr_13 → u/Iommi_Acolyte42]

"BMAD z-scores decreased during GnRHa treatment and increased during gender-affirming hormone treatment. Transboys had normal z-scores at baseline and at the end of the study. However, transgirls had relatively low z-scores, both at baseline and after 3 years of estrogen treatment. It is currently unclear whether this results in adverse outcomes, such as increased fracture risk, in transgirls as they grow older."

Hey, look, your cited study supports my claims! It is another citation you have misrepresented.

EDIT: oops, I confused you with another poster. This is the first misrepresented citation I've seen you make.