OK, but as far as states that actually have "bans on transgender health care" that you referenced, we're talking about "bans on certain medications and surgeries for minors," right?
No, social gender transition is an important part of "gender-affirming medical care" but does not require medication or surgery. It is being banned on government property (namely schools) in some states. I already shared the contents of a Montana bill defining it.
Is there any state law that actually prohibits adults from pursuing and getting the medical treatment we're talking about?
you can pick nits but republicans are trying to take away this care from adults if they haven't already. I thought the link I shared before made that fairly clear but here is another article two years ago:
OK, see, in the spirit of this thread, I think there's some illuminating left-right divide here that may shed some light on the original topic of this thread.
So you originally said that states have bans on "transgender health care." I think we agreed that the only "bans" that exist (at least currently) involve "health care" for children (though I think our definitions of "health care" may be different). You reference some legislation that bans/curtails access for adults currently being contemplated in some state legislatures, but as far as I can tell, no adult bans have actually been passed into law anywhere (yet). I think we agree on that.
But where I really, genuinely start losing you is when you (a) say that "social transition is banned on government property (namely schools) in some states" and (b) you refer to "social transition" as "health care" (that has presumably been "banned" in Montana).
With respect to the Montana law, I read it this morning, and I think either you or I am misunderstanding it. If you think that law prohibits a child in school from presenting as a particular gender, I think you're misreading it.
"Except to the extent required by the first amendment to the United States constitution, state property, facilities, or buildings may not be knowingly used to promote or advocate the use of social transitioning or the medical treatments prohibited in subsection..." As I read it, it says that you can't use state property to promote/advocate for social transitioning. Nothing in that provision says that a kid can't present a certain way in schools or that teachers can't use preferred pronouns. It just says that state property can't be used to promote or advocate for social transition (whatever, exactly that looks like within the bounds of the first amendment). It's certainly not "banning social transition." I haven't even found an article that addresses (let alone criticizes) that specific portion of the statute -- and plenty address the medical issues. If that provision does what you suggest it does, I would assume that it would've garnered a lot more attention than it has. If you think that provision "bans social transition in schools," then I think we've found an interesting intellectual rift between us.
Second, and I don't know if this is a broad, fundamental disagreement between us or a misunderstanding, but I want to make sure. I don't know what you mean when you say "social transition is an important part of gender-affirming medical care" in the context of this conversation when you talked about how there have been bans on transgender healthcare. When you originally said "bans on transgender healthcare," I assumed you were talking about actual medical care involving...medical providers. Is it your view that if you use someone's preferred pronouns (or otherwise abiding by their gender expression) you're providing them "healthcare"? And if not, you're denying them "healthcare"? It's very possible I misunderstood you, but when I read that my mind was kind of blown and it made me think we're not even speaking the same language on this stuff if your definition of "healthcare" is that broad.
