TX AG Ken Paxton compares healthcare for trans kids to the opioid epidemic & forced sterilization
Do you want to promote an argument absent scientific support? It is simple. You cite studies and claim they say things they do not say - and reach conclusions they do not reach. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton provided an egregious example of the technique. In a legal opinion issued in a letter to the Texas House Speaker, Matt Krause on Feb. 18, he said certain types of gender-affirming health care, including puberty blockers and surgery, should be classified as child abuse when used for minors. So ‘satisfactory’ was his distorted analysis, Gov. Abbott used it as justification to demand the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) conduct prompt and thorough investigations of any reported instances of Texas children being subjected to ‘abusive’ gender-transitioning procedures.
Which is another example — along with the state's misogynistic, anti-choice law — that proves no one loves ‘big government‘ more than a ‘small government conservative'.
Which raises the question, how did Paxton reach his extreme conclusion? Let’s start by looking at his first contention,
While you* refer to these procedures as “sex changes,” it is important to note that it remains medically impossible to truly change the sex of an individual because this is determined biologically at conception.
*Matt Krause, Speaker of the TX House
Here Paxton clings to the atavistic notion that if the baby looks like a boy, it is a boy. And if they look like a girl, they are a girl. But where is that chiseled in stone? Gender is equally a psychological concept. And as such, an individual knows their gender better than anyone else.
Paxton then uses the fact that gender-assignment surgery often leads to sterility to make an incendiary and inaccurate comparison.
“sterilization of minors and other vulnerable populations without clear consent is not a new phenomenon and has an unsettling history. Historically weaponized against minorities, sterilization procedures have harmed many vulnerable populations, such as African Americans, female minors, the disabled, and others.”
When Paxton says “without clear consent," he is just making stuff up. Or does he have an example of a surgery performed on a minor against their wishes? An apologist might argue that Paxton is merely making an ‘age of consent’ argument. But Paxton makes it clear that is not what he is thinking. He compares the procedures — welcomed and demanded by teens — to forced sterilization of powerless people against their expressed wish. It is unconscionable cynicism.
Paxton adds,
"These violations have been found to infringe upon the fundamental human right to procreate."
Just because you have the right to do something does not mean you must exercise the right. What if you do not want to? Many Americans do not own a gun because they have seen the statistics that show people, who own one, are more like to die from a gunshot. They decided not to exercise their right based on circumstances. The transgendered are entitled to trade their right to procreate for their right to live fully as the gender they are. Besides, as the infertile and gays have long known, there are more ways to become a parent than by sex.
However, Paxton is dedicated to his sterilization argument, He adds,
“Several studies show a higher rate of regret at being sterilized among younger women than among those who were sterilized at a later age.”
I’ll take his word for it. But he is comparing apples and oranges. The goal of sterilization surgeries is sterilization. The goal of gender-affirming procedures is something else entirely.
Paxton’s next argument calls out the high rate of suicide among people who have gone through gender-affirmation procedures.
“One of the few relevant studies monitored transitioned individuals for 30 years. It found high rates of post-transition suicide and significantly elevated all-cause mortality, including increased death rates from cardiovascular disease and cancer, although causality could not be established.”
First, there may well be “high rates of post-transition suicide,” but that is a number without context. How does the suicide rate compare to the trans who did not undergo procedures? And are the suicides a result of treatment — or due to politicians, and other bigots, who treat the trans like sinners and second-class citizens? Even Paxton dismisses his own argument when he says “causality could not be established."
Paxton then compares healthcare for trans teens to opioid abuse. He argues that pharmaceutical companies and doctors caused an addiction crisis. And therefore
“There is always the potential for novel medical determinations to promote purported remedies that may not improve patient outcomes and can even result in tragic harms. The same potential for harm exists for minors who have engaged in the type of procedures or treatments above.”
It is an absurd argument. The profit potential of foisting addictive drugs on millions of pain sufferers is exponentially greater than the potential profits of treating thousands of teen trans patients. Further, Paxton’s argument could justify banning any new medical procedure — for anybody — including aging white Texas politicians. A new Alzheimer’s drug? Sorry, not in Texas.
While most of Paxton’s argument rests on his sterilization misdirection, he does his level best to render non-sterilizing treatments as child abuse as well. He writes,
Thus, where a factual scenario involving non-medically necessary, gender-based procedures or treatments on a minor causes or threatens to cause harm or irreparable harm to the child—comparable to instances of Munchausen syndrome by proxy or criminal injury to a child—or demonstrates a lack of consent, etc., a court could find such procedures to constitute child abuse under section 261.001.
Note 'Munchausen syndrome is now called ‘factitious disorder'. The Mayo Clinic defines it as someone falsely claiming, “another person has physical or psychological signs or symptoms of illness or causes injury or disease in another person to deceive others. It usually involves a parent harming a child. This form of abuse can put a child in serious danger of injury or unnecessary medical care.”
Hell, I agree that “unnecessary medical care” is child abuse. But so is denying necessary medical care. Paxton singles out trans treatments for political reasons, not because he cares about kids. If he did, he would make it plain that the disorder is most often seen in parents who claim medical issues unrelated to trans treatments. Where is Paxton’s passion over those bastards?
He goes on to make another specious comparison,
Of course, this broad definition of abuse would apply to and include criminal acts against children, such as “female genital mutilation”.
We can dismiss this on the same grounds we dismissed the forced sterilization comparison.
Paxton further claims,
“causing or permitting the child to be in a situation in which the child sustains a mental or emotional injury that results in an observable and material impairment in the child’s growth, development, or psychological functioning is abuse.”
He has it completely backward. This argument says a parent is guilty of abuse if they do nothing to address a child’s gender anguish. What could be a worse mental or emotional injury than to have a psychological hurt unaddressed?
Paxton goes on to cite laws justifying his premise. However, as his premise is wrong, it is irrelevant how many citations he uses to give his letter heft. Wrong is wrong, no matter how pretty the bows you use to tie it up.