The Legendary Dragon Alephwyr, named Alephwyr, BA

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.

I'm just going off the text in the picture, but it seems to me like it's arguing that teens who have been abused may not be in a good place to make such decisions? I don't think it's a binary between treatment/no treatment, but adding more counselling before reevaluation?

It's a subtle obfuscation. It doesn't matter if they're not in a good place to make such decisions because when they go before a doctor it becomes the doctor's decision. That's the nature of gatekeeping. Also the only thing that matters is whether the decision is correct or not

If the affirmation route is growing more common, then it is increasingly largely up to the patient and less the doctor, is it not?

If this is the case then it is probably because of broken incentive structures in the system itself rather than because doctors just "feel obligated" or something. Either way the answer should be to change incentive structures rather than force the error in one exact direction.

Fair enough, I think changing incentive structures would be a good thing. I agree we shouldn't force an error, although I'm not sure having more therapy available would do so. How do you feel about bill C6 in Canada?