The Medical University of South Carolina initially said it wouldn’t be affected by a law banning use of state funds for treatment “furthering the gender transition” of children under 16. Months later, it cut off that care to all trans minors.

The Medical University of South Carolina initially said it wouldn’t be affected by a law banning use of state funds for treatment “furthering the gender transition” of children under 16. Months later, it cut off that care to all trans minors.

One Saturday morning in September 2022, Terrence Steyer, the dean of the College of Medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina, placed an urgent call to a student. Just a year prior, the medical student, Thomas Agostini, had won first place at a university-sponsored event for his graduate research on transgender pediatric patients. He also had been featured in a video on MUSC’s website highlighting resources that support the LGBTQ+ community.

Now, Agostini and his once-lauded study had set off a political firestorm. Conservative activists seized on one line in particular in the study’s summary — a parenthetical noting the youngest transgender patient to visit MUSC’s pediatric endocrinology clinic was 4 years old — and inaccurately claimed that children that young were prescribed hormones as part of a gender transition. Elon Musk amplified the false claim, tweeting, “Is it really true that four-year-olds are receiving hormone treatment?” That led federal and state lawmakers to frantically ask top MUSC leaders whether the public hospital was in fact helping young children medically transition. The hospital was not; its pediatric transgender patients did not receive hormone therapy before puberty, nor does it offer surgical options to minors.

    • Omniraptor@lemm.ee
      81·
      11 months ago

      wow we found one in the wild (no offense). But seriously I would like to know, why not give your kids the chance to decide for themselves as well?

      • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
        48·
        11 months ago

        A number of reasons. The whole “well just wash” thing kind of presumes a certain quality of life and access to hygiene that isn’t guaranteed–my doctor’s opinion on this was informed by his experience in the jungle in Vietnam; it is more hygienic that washing, as obviously soap and water doesn’t remove all bacteria and fungus that live on the skin, especially in folds or crevices; it’s a surface that goes right over the top of an open orifice, so the risk of infection really isn’t something to leave to chance as to whether or not you’ll finish the day with a hot shower and soap; adult circumcision requires open wound care protocol, which carries its own risk of infection, in a very sensitive area, prone to healing complications, whereas babies have veritable superhuman healing powers and it heals in a few days with Vaseline; as a baby it’s a basically an outpatient dermatological procedure, as an adult it’s an actual surgery, with much greater risks of complications. It’s a no brainer; it was recommended by every doctor we asked, who all considered it a no brainer. I know you can find anything online but the science and weighing of risks on this is makes the decision pretty clear.

        E: Dumb, anti-acience people are downvoting this. Apparently they know more than doctors.

        • 𝙲𝚑𝚊𝚒𝚛𝚖𝚊𝚗 𝙼𝚎𝚘𝚠@programming.dev
          7·
          11 months ago

          The scientific evidence supporting circumcision is actually fairly unconvincing. It’s still invasive, medically unnecessary surgery, that kills ~100 babies every year. It’s also proven that their brains are impacted by the procedure and show signs of PTSD.

          Literally no other health board except American ones recommend circumcision. Canada, the Netherlands, the UK, Germany, all of these countries recommend strongly against circumcision as a therapeutic treatment, as far less invasive and much more effective options exist to achieve similar or far better health benefits. Even having basic hygiene and washing your penis erases any claimed health benefits from circumcision (which were already incredibly minor). It’s literally only potentially beneficial if you don’t observe basic hygiene.

          It’s also fairly unethical to make decisions regarding what is effectively mostly cosmetic surgery on a baby boy that can not consent to the procedure.

          Literally almost every mammal evolved to have some kind of penile sheath. If it was truly detrimental to have a foreskin, it is highly unlikely that would have happened.