No, your point holds true only if we were disqualifying by mistake. Even if disqualification were occurring at higher frequencies, if those were *accurate* decisions that then helped people get proper treatment/therapy for their trauma, that would be a good thing.
Transitioning wouldn't stop abuse. Look, the incentive structure is this: 1. If my child says they were abused, they can't do thing I don't want them to 2. I can abuse my child to prevent them from doing thing I don't want them to 3. I will abuse my child
-
-
Hmmm. I sort of see what you're saying, but in cases such as this shouldn't the first priority be to get some sort of intervention/cps/therapy involved first anyway? And again, I don't think the original argument was for abuse to *disqualify* people from treatment.
-
It may be. And the original argument entails disqualification for abuse, at a higher than current rate (which is -allegedly- 0, so any positive rate would be higher), so it doesn't really matter that it was "about" things besides just disqualification.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
And yeah, we'd need longitudinal studies, but it seems to me like it'd be a good thing for counseling to be a first step for abused individuals before they took further steps towards transitioning?
-
I honestly oppose any attempt to take discretion away from the professionals and put it in the hands of untrained lawmakers. Counselling may be a good first step. I am not sure that it doesn't happen now however.
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
obviously assessments exist but they're not even in application. Are you actually arguing for fewer assessments? Affirmation only?