Can someone tell me what "not providing gender affirming care" at Catholic hospitals means?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If being misgendered would be troubling to you or your child, I would familiarize yourself with the route to a different hospital.

Presumably in a true life-or-death, minutes count sort of emergency, misgendering or missed doses of the pill would not be a concern.

Yes. This should be your last concern if there is a true emergency. Otherwise go to the hospital you prefer.

I find it troubling to force religious people to accommodate beliefs they find untrue, so I guess we are even.

If “religious people” monopolize a public necessity like hospitals then THEY are the ones imposing their religious views on others if they chose to impose their religious views on health care. If Catholics did not want this they should not have gotten into the business of community health care.

When Catholics got into community healthcare, it was to help people and trans wasn't a thing so that conflict of beliefs did not exist. Societal beliefs have shifted, not Catholic beliefs.

This is flagrantly false. You are entitled to your own beliefs but not to your own facts.

Her post was completely accurate... all of it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Catholic Church is the largest non-governmental provider of healthcare across the world. They provide the greatest amount of pro bono care in the world, even in places that are not predominantly Catholic. The fact that they will bow to the beliefs of some people does not negate the benefit they provide.

They do this in hopes of converting people to their religion. Christians want LGBT people to not engage in who we are. Those that actually acknowledge that we even exist. I know when I was a kid they were calling being queer a choice. Now they claim the choice is whether to engage in the “sin” - or at least those that aren’t still living in 1980’s homophobia do.

No. You are wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It can also mean any doctor you see that’s under the hospitals umbrella won’t prescribe things like HRT or testosterone to “cis-het” folks either.

Stripping away medical rights damages the system for EVERYONE.

That’s quite a thing to say. Is this actually happening? Catholic hospitals won’t give menopausal women HRT?

That is completely different.

Medically necessary (menopause) vs elective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It can also mean any doctor you see that’s under the hospitals umbrella won’t prescribe things like HRT or testosterone to “cis-het” folks either.

Stripping away medical rights damages the system for EVERYONE.

You completely made this up.

HRT and testosterone are gender affirming care.

DP. Show me one shred of evidence that menopausal women are not getting HRT somewhere because it is “gender affirming care”.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I am lawyer tracking the discrimination cases closely. One key argument is that treatments like puberty blockers and hormone therapy are being provided to cisgender patients but not transgender patients which is discrimination on the basis of both gender identity and disability (the medical diagnosis) in violation of state and federal laws. In that case, hospitals have two choices to comply with the law. They could a) provide the transgender people with the treatment given to cisgender people or b) deny those treatments to everyone. Both are ways to stop discriminating.

While I'd love to believe option b would never happen, we have to remember that Virginia literally shut down all of its public schools to avoid complying with Brown v. Board. The possibility is real.

They are not even the same thing.

One is medically necessary, such as blockers for precocious puberty. The other is purely elective and can cause significant long term health harm in children, taking hormines not meant for their natural body systems.

It is not at all like brown vs the board of education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It can also mean any doctor you see that’s under the hospitals umbrella won’t prescribe things like HRT or testosterone to “cis-het” folks either.

Stripping away medical rights damages the system for EVERYONE.

You completely made this up.

HRT and testosterone are gender affirming care.

DP. Show me one shred of evidence that menopausal women are not getting HRT somewhere because it is “gender affirming care”.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I am lawyer tracking the discrimination cases closely. One key argument is that treatments like puberty blockers and hormone therapy are being provided to cisgender patients but not transgender patients which is discrimination on the basis of both gender identity and disability (the medical diagnosis) in violation of state and federal laws. In that case, hospitals have two choices to comply with the law. They could a) provide the transgender people with the treatment given to cisgender people or b) deny those treatments to everyone. Both are ways to stop discriminating.

While I'd love to believe option b would never happen, we have to remember that Virginia literally shut down all of its public schools to avoid complying with Brown v. Board. The possibility is real.

Are you a doctor?
There are many medical treatments that are different for males vs. females. That does not mean there is discrimination.

Gender identity =/= sex.

I’m a lawyer working with expert witness physicians.

Your analogy doesn’t quite work here. Here, for example, cisgender kids can have their precocious puberty delayed to protect their mental health, even though there is nothing physiologically wrong with me (ask me how I know—I was that kid). Transgender kids whose physicians have recommended puberty suppression for the same reason have their treatment denied. The treatments are the same, provide the same effect, and are medically indicated. Only the transgender child can’t get it. That’s where the discrimination lies.

It is not at all the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It can also mean any doctor you see that’s under the hospitals umbrella won’t prescribe things like HRT or testosterone to “cis-het” folks either.

Stripping away medical rights damages the system for EVERYONE.

You completely made this up.

HRT and testosterone are gender affirming care.

DP. Show me one shred of evidence that menopausal women are not getting HRT somewhere because it is “gender affirming care”.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I am lawyer tracking the discrimination cases closely. One key argument is that treatments like puberty blockers and hormone therapy are being provided to cisgender patients but not transgender patients which is discrimination on the basis of both gender identity and disability (the medical diagnosis) in violation of state and federal laws. In that case, hospitals have two choices to comply with the law. They could a) provide the transgender people with the treatment given to cisgender people or b) deny those treatments to everyone. Both are ways to stop discriminating.

While I'd love to believe option b would never happen, we have to remember that Virginia literally shut down all of its public schools to avoid complying with Brown v. Board. The possibility is real.

Are you a doctor?
There are many medical treatments that are different for males vs. females. That does not mean there is discrimination.

Gender identity =/= sex.

I’m a lawyer working with expert witness physicians.

Your analogy doesn’t quite work here. Here, for example, cisgender kids can have their precocious puberty delayed to protect their mental health, even though there is nothing physiologically wrong with me (ask me how I know—I was that kid). Transgender kids whose physicians have recommended puberty suppression for the same reason have their treatment denied. The treatments are the same, provide the same effect, and are medically indicated. Only the transgender child can’t get it. That’s where the discrimination lies.

Your argument lost in the courts.

The two scenarios are very different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If being misgendered would be troubling to you or your child, I would familiarize yourself with the route to a different hospital.

Presumably in a true life-or-death, minutes count sort of emergency, misgendering or missed doses of the pill would not be a concern.

Yes. This should be your last concern if there is a true emergency. Otherwise go to the hospital you prefer.

I find it troubling to force religious people to accommodate beliefs they find untrue, so I guess we are even.

If “religious people” monopolize a public necessity like hospitals then THEY are the ones imposing their religious views on others if they chose to impose their religious views on health care. If Catholics did not want this they should not have gotten into the business of community health care.

When Catholics got into community healthcare, it was to help people and trans wasn't a thing so that conflict of beliefs did not exist. Societal beliefs have shifted, not Catholic beliefs.

This is flagrantly false. You are entitled to your own beliefs but not to your own facts.

NP. OMG stop rewriting history. Trans was absolutely not a thing, not the way it is now in the context of a hospital. There was no gender affirming care protocol, no cross-sex hormones for gender care, etc. please be real for once. Good God the delusion is insane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If being misgendered would be troubling to you or your child, I would familiarize yourself with the route to a different hospital.

Presumably in a true life-or-death, minutes count sort of emergency, misgendering or missed doses of the pill would not be a concern.

Yes. This should be your last concern if there is a true emergency. Otherwise go to the hospital you prefer.

I find it troubling to force religious people to accommodate beliefs they find untrue, so I guess we are even.

A church congregation should not be forced to no. But a hospital providing health care to the public is not the same thing. Hospitals can’t pick and choose what service they provide based on their interpretation of a book written by men translated many many times into many many languages.
Signed, a Christian

Religious hospitals are founded and run by religious denominations and often, specific religious orders.

Quit trying to impose your secular beliefs on people of faith.

+1

They were built and run on the labor of unpaid nuns in particular, who were guided by their faith. These hospitals provided care for the destitute when nobody else did, and were forward-thinking in the care of women in particular because they were run by women.

The attacks from entitled (yet wholly ignorant) people like the PP you are responding to are off the hook.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It can also mean any doctor you see that’s under the hospitals umbrella won’t prescribe things like HRT or testosterone to “cis-het” folks either.

Stripping away medical rights damages the system for EVERYONE.

You completely made this up.

HRT and testosterone are gender affirming care.

DP. Show me one shred of evidence that menopausal women are not getting HRT somewhere because it is “gender affirming care”.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I am lawyer tracking the discrimination cases closely. One key argument is that treatments like puberty blockers and hormone therapy are being provided to cisgender patients but not transgender patients which is discrimination on the basis of both gender identity and disability (the medical diagnosis) in violation of state and federal laws. In that case, hospitals have two choices to comply with the law. They could a) provide the transgender people with the treatment given to cisgender people or b) deny those treatments to everyone. Both are ways to stop discriminating.

While I'd love to believe option b would never happen, we have to remember that Virginia literally shut down all of its public schools to avoid complying with Brown v. Board. The possibility is real.

They are not even the same thing.

One is medically necessary, such as blockers for precocious puberty. The other is purely elective and can cause significant long term health harm in children, taking hormines not meant for their natural body systems.

It is not at all like brown vs the board of education.

In at least 90% of precocious puberty cases, there is no known cause. What we define as "precocious" is purely normed. It's based on the earliest 5% for their sex. I.E., it's a completely socially constructed definition. The reason for pausing precocious puberty is overwhelmingly social and emotional (i.e. elective). Only very recently have some associations with physical health issues, such as uterine cancer, come to light. Those are associational, not causal, and it may be that the things causing central precocious puberty also increase risk for those cancers. There is no evidence yet that blocking precocious puberty reduces the risk of those cancers, but it's possible. So again, the overwhelming reason (and really the only reason prior to maybe 5ish years ago) for blocking precocious puberty in children was to improve their social and emotional wellbeing. To be clear, that's a great reason to block puberty. It's also the same reason transgender children and children with gender dysphoria need puberty blockers.

And you appear to believe that this argument is dead based on the Skremetti decision. That is solely a question of equal protection under the Constitution. The plaintiffs there did not raise federal disability discrimination arguments or bring any claims under state laws, many of which are more protective than the Equal Protection Clause.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It can also mean any doctor you see that’s under the hospitals umbrella won’t prescribe things like HRT or testosterone to “cis-het” folks either.

Stripping away medical rights damages the system for EVERYONE.

You completely made this up.

HRT and testosterone are gender affirming care.

DP. Show me one shred of evidence that menopausal women are not getting HRT somewhere because it is “gender affirming care”.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I am lawyer tracking the discrimination cases closely. One key argument is that treatments like puberty blockers and hormone therapy are being provided to cisgender patients but not transgender patients which is discrimination on the basis of both gender identity and disability (the medical diagnosis) in violation of state and federal laws. In that case, hospitals have two choices to comply with the law. They could a) provide the transgender people with the treatment given to cisgender people or b) deny those treatments to everyone. Both are ways to stop discriminating.

While I'd love to believe option b would never happen, we have to remember that Virginia literally shut down all of its public schools to avoid complying with Brown v. Board. The possibility is real.

They are not even the same thing.

One is medically necessary, such as blockers for precocious puberty. The other is purely elective and can cause significant long term health harm in children, taking hormines not meant for their natural body systems.

It is not at all like brown vs the board of education.

In at least 90% of precocious puberty cases, there is no known cause. What we define as "precocious" is purely normed. It's based on the earliest 5% for their sex. I.E., it's a completely socially constructed definition. The reason for pausing precocious puberty is overwhelmingly social and emotional (i.e. elective). Only very recently have some associations with physical health issues, such as uterine cancer, come to light. Those are associational, not causal, and it may be that the things causing central precocious puberty also increase risk for those cancers. There is no evidence yet that blocking precocious puberty reduces the risk of those cancers, but it's possible. So again, the overwhelming reason (and really the only reason prior to maybe 5ish years ago) for blocking precocious puberty in children was to improve their social and emotional wellbeing. To be clear, that's a great reason to block puberty. It's also the same reason transgender children and children with gender dysphoria need puberty blockers.

And you appear to believe that this argument is dead based on the Skremetti decision. That is solely a question of equal protection under the Constitution. The plaintiffs there did not raise federal disability discrimination arguments or bring any claims under state laws, many of which are more protective than the Equal Protection Clause.

How you are truly disappointed that there is growing recent evidence of potential physical health benefits for use of puberty blockers to stop precocious puberty is just so weird and cultish.

Just for the record, it is a good thing when cancer is prevented in children, and we should learn more about that, and be happy about it, regardless of your belief systems about trans rights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If being misgendered would be troubling to you or your child, I would familiarize yourself with the route to a different hospital.

Presumably in a true life-or-death, minutes count sort of emergency, misgendering or missed doses of the pill would not be a concern.

Yes. This should be your last concern if there is a true emergency. Otherwise go to the hospital you prefer.

I find it troubling to force religious people to accommodate beliefs they find untrue, so I guess we are even.

If “religious people” monopolize a public necessity like hospitals then THEY are the ones imposing their religious views on others if they chose to impose their religious views on health care. If Catholics did not want this they should not have gotten into the business of community health care.

What an idiotic comment. Religious people found and pay for these hospitals. They have saved millions of lives.

[Anonymous]

Go to a different hospital

[Anonymous]

Exactly how old is this kid?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It can also mean any doctor you see that’s under the hospitals umbrella won’t prescribe things like HRT or testosterone to “cis-het” folks either.

Stripping away medical rights damages the system for EVERYONE.

You completely made this up.

HRT and testosterone are gender affirming care.

DP. Show me one shred of evidence that menopausal women are not getting HRT somewhere because it is “gender affirming care”.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I am lawyer tracking the discrimination cases closely. One key argument is that treatments like puberty blockers and hormone therapy are being provided to cisgender patients but not transgender patients which is discrimination on the basis of both gender identity and disability (the medical diagnosis) in violation of state and federal laws. In that case, hospitals have two choices to comply with the law. They could a) provide the transgender people with the treatment given to cisgender people or b) deny those treatments to everyone. Both are ways to stop discriminating.

While I'd love to believe option b would never happen, we have to remember that Virginia literally shut down all of its public schools to avoid complying with Brown v. Board. The possibility is real.

They are not even the same thing.

One is medically necessary, such as blockers for precocious puberty. The other is purely elective and can cause significant long term health harm in children, taking hormines not meant for their natural body systems.

It is not at all like brown vs the board of education.

In at least 90% of precocious puberty cases, there is no known cause. What we define as "precocious" is purely normed. It's based on the earliest 5% for their sex. I.E., it's a completely socially constructed definition. The reason for pausing precocious puberty is overwhelmingly social and emotional (i.e. elective). Only very recently have some associations with physical health issues, such as uterine cancer, come to light. Those are associational, not causal, and it may be that the things causing central precocious puberty also increase risk for those cancers. There is no evidence yet that blocking precocious puberty reduces the risk of those cancers, but it's possible. So again, the overwhelming reason (and really the only reason prior to maybe 5ish years ago) for blocking precocious puberty in children was to improve their social and emotional wellbeing. To be clear, that's a great reason to block puberty. It's also the same reason transgender children and children with gender dysphoria need puberty blockers.

And you appear to believe that this argument is dead based on the Skremetti decision. That is solely a question of equal protection under the Constitution. The plaintiffs there did not raise federal disability discrimination arguments or bring any claims under state laws, many of which are more protective than the Equal Protection Clause.

How you are truly disappointed that there is growing recent evidence of potential physical health benefits for use of puberty blockers to stop precocious puberty is just so weird and cultish.

Just for the record, it is a good thing when cancer is prevented in children, and we should learn more about that, and be happy about it, regardless of your belief systems about trans rights.

PP here. I’m cis and had precocious puberty for which my parents declined blockers. It was a huge mistake on their part but one I don’t fault them for. I feel great empathy for trans children in large part because of how damaging precocious puberty was to my mental health.

That the evidence of potential physical benefits of blockers for kids with precocious puberty is new isn’t a bad thing. The recency is important for underscoring that refusal to provide blockers to trans kids is discriminatory, as for decades these same providers were happy to provide blockers to cis kids solely for social and emotional benefits. But for trans kids, social and emotional benefits are apparently insufficient to justify blockers.

[Anonymous]

This post belongs in the politics forum. I call bigot troll on OP. It's set up to attract anti-Catholic bigots who just want to hate on the Church for its beliefs. Everyone knows what the Church teaches about human sexuality. You're not going to get a sex change or an elective abortion at a Catholic hospital! The end.