From: Bernard Hudson Sent: 1/29/2020 6:36:46 AM To: "jamie.shupe@yahoo.com" <jamie.shupe@yahoo.com> Cc: Subject: Re: Objections to bill- other thoughtss Sorry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Bowman Virginia Prince caught my eye and I remembered his involvement with him. BH On Jan 29, 2020, at 8:24 AM, James Shupe (Formerly Jamie Shupe) <jamie.shupe@yahoo.com> wrote: Not familiar with Bowmen? A link to suggested reading, please. James Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 9:16 AM, Bernard Hudson <loyolamd82@gmail.com> wrote: Then, of course, you may know of Karl Bowmen? Sent from my iPhone On Jan 28, 2020, at 12:59 PM, James Shupe (Formerly Jamie Shupe) <jamie.shupe@yahoo.com> wrote: With Dr. Money coining gender identity in 1966 and transvestite Virginia Prince coining transgender in 1969, the hard to define "class of people" is younger than me, and a lot of others in this conversation, something courts should be taking note of. Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 1:42 PM, Andre Van Mol <95andrev@gmail.com> wrote: What’s odd about the military “class of people” argument per ACLU, etc., is that the military reserves the right to exclude whomever it deems unfit for service. There is no right to serve in the military. They exclude the overweight, sleep walkers (somnambulism), bed wetters (enuresis), and so forth. Those are far more defined classes/conditions than is the self-defined transgenderism (as not all TGs are gender dysphoric). Andre On Jan 27, 2020, at 6:39 AM, James Shupe (Formerly Jamie Shupe) <jamie.shupe@yahoo.com> wrote: Mike, The interesting thing about number 7 is the ACLU will claim the bill is targeting a "class of people," and that it's singling them out for discrimination. That's what they did for the gender dysphoria ban with trans military service. Hopefully, the lawyers will chime in on this, but my view is the bill is targeting a medical condition, of which there's no fixed consensus about what the origin is, whether it's strictly mental, etc. The ADA law states transvestism is excluded, so that allowed singling out a class of folks because a medical condition. James Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 9:21 AM, Michael Laidlaw <mike@drlaidlaw.com> wrote: Here are my thoughts on those items, Fred: 1. Suicide rates go up Kids who are suicidal need competent mental health care, not sterilization. The largest study tracking transgender people encompassed the entire population of Sweden over a 30 year period and showed that hormones and sex reassignment surgery still left people at a 19X higher risk of completed suicide compared to then general population. The U.K.'s Tavistock GIDS clinic showed that children on blockers reported GREATER selfharm. Girls reported MORE behavioral and emotional problems, greater dissatisfaction with body. The latest survey study being touted by the mainstream media [by J Turban] actually shows that puberty blocker use did NOT reduce the risk of inpatient hospitalization for suicide attempts. 2. Impact economy [I'll leave this to the econ people] 3. Interferes with doctor-patient relationship Not everything is permissible within a doctor-patient relationship. The doctor does not have a right to harm a patient. A proper doctor-patient relationship involves full disclosure of the risks and benefits of a therapy. If the child cannot fully understand the harms of therapy such as sterilization and removal of healthy body parts, then the child is a part of an unhealthy doctor-patient relationship and the state MUST intervene to prevent harms. 4. Interferes with parental rights The parent also does not have the right to participate in the harm of their child. The parent is relying on medical evidence that has been rated as low, very low and no quality evidence in the 2017 Endocrine Society guidelines. The Endocrine Society guidelines in their disclaimer on p. 3895 states clearly that these treatments are NOT standards of care. The state must intervene to prevent parents from inadvertently participating in the harm of their child because they have received incomplete information on a poorly researched subject. 5. Parents must give consent – therefore it should be the parent held responsible, not the doctor The parent provides consent based on a good faith assumption that the doctors are providing the best care possible and have properly weighed the risks and benefits of treatment. However, the harms that come to a child (e.g. sterilization, permanent disfiguration, heart disease risk, osteoporosis risk, etc.) are the primary result of physicians who have performed the surgeries or given these medications. Only the doctor can truly comprehend the potential scope of injury, and only they are licensed by the state to prescribe and perform these procedures. It is not the job of the parent to investigate any and all potential harms of a medication or procedure. It is the duty of a licensed physician. Therefore the culpability for harms to a patient, falls on the doctor. [Perhaps, similar to a medical malpractice suit]. 6. PB are reversible The effects of Puberty Blockers are NOT reversible. The important time lost for normal development can never be regained. A key period of bone strengthening is affected putting the child at risk for adult osteoporosis. A key period of brain development is affected, and many of the risks are unknown because they have not been studied. The U.K.'s Tavistock GIDS clinic showed that children on blockers reported GREATER self- harm. Girls reported MORE behavioral and emotional problems, greater dissatisfaction with body. Also a key time of growing together and interacting with peers and reaching important psychosocial milestones is lost forever. An analogy: Just imagine you've taken your child out of 6th grade for the entire year. Is the time lost reversible? If you put them back in sixth grade, are they not in class with a bunch of students who are developmentally younger than they? Can the time lost studying ever be regained? Will the child not be at a disadvantage trying to catch up to the next grade? Can the important sixth grade experiences with peers ever be the same? 7. Bill is unconstitutional [Will leave to attorneys and legislators] -Mike On 2020-01-27 03:55, patrick Lappert wrote: I think one has to be prepared to dismantle the validity of the WPATH guidelines: -Where WPATH came from -How the guidelines were crafted -How they are ignored, even by adherents. PWL On January 26, 2020 at 11:28 PM Andre Van Mol <95andrev@gmail.com> wrote: Those are the stats I've seen as well. So take away the medical students and residents, and the AMA really isn't the A-MA. As for it and the others, they are all professional guilds and susceptible to political/ideological/financial manipulation. They are not scientific organizations, and people don't seem to get that. Andre On Jan 26, 2020, at 6:50 PM, Bernard Hudson < loyolamd82@gmail.com> wrote: AMA membership hovers less than 20% of licensed physicians, actually about 17% of physicians and medical students. Decades ago, 3/4 of licensed doctors were members. The AMA movement towards accepting doctors killing patients, and infants are patients, has destroyed the membership over the decades. The issue will be that a physician is not a consensus doctor if not abiding by AMA affirmation guidelines. In Tampa, August 2019, the opposing attorneys wrote: "Dr. Hudson is not a consensus physician and clearly harms children." Although they lost the case, gutting all of Florida's affirmation guidelines, they included 13 medical and psychological organizations including, My God Yes!, the American High School Counselors Association! Accept this approach as typical. BH On Jan 26, 2020, at 6:44 PM, James Shupe (Formerly Jamie Shupe) < jamie.shupe@yahoo.com> wrote: That you're going against the advice of the American Medical Association and WPATH, etc. Note: This email chain had Kara Dansky and Greg Scott, please remove them if you respond. James On Sunday, January 26, 2020, 07:39:39 PM EST, Fred Deutsch < fred.deutsch@sdlegislature.gov> wrote: Brainstorming idea for objections to bill. Others that you think I should prepare for in addition claims that: Suicide rates go up Impact economy Interferes with doctor-patient relationship Interferes with parental rights Parents must give consent – therefore it should be the parent held responsible, not the doctor PB are reversable Bill is unconstitutional Patrick W. Lappert, MD 8263 Madison Blvd. Suite E Madison, AL 35758