Center for a Stateless Society

Tag: youth rights

  • Se Dobbiamo Legalizzare il Lavoro Minorile…

    Di Logan Marie Glitterbomb. Articolo originale pubblicato il 24 giugno 2024 con il titolo Maybe We Should Legalize Child Labor After All. Traduzione di Enrico Sanna.

    In questi ultimi tempi si è diffusa in molti stati la paura per la legalizzazione del lavoro minorile. Ma legalizzare è positivo? Dopotutto, i movimenti sindacali si sono battuti duramente e a lungo per vietare il lavoro minorile e proteggere così i più giovani dallo sfruttamento. A contestare questa visione però oggi c’è tutto un insieme di “liberazionisti” giovanili.

    Leggiamo su NPR:

    Alcuni stati, come l’Iowa, il Missouri, l’Ohio e l’Arkansas hanno approvato o stanno per approvare leggi che permettono alle aziende di assumere giovani senza lavoro o di prolungare l’orario di lavoro o ancora di farli lavorare in condizioni pericolose in cantieri, impianti per la lavorazione delle carni e fabbriche di automobili.

    Intanto l’amministrazione di Biden fatica a far rispettare le attuali norme federali sul lavoro minorile.

    Secondo il dipartimento del lavoro, dal 2018 il numero di minori che lavorano in nero è cresciuto del 69 percento.

    Il timore di condizioni di lavoro pericolose è reale e riguarda tutti i lavoratori di tutte le età. Legalizzare il lavoro minorile significa più possibilità di ricorso legale per i giovanissimi che lavorano in condizioni pericolose, più controlli da parte dello stato e soprattutto da parte dei sindacati.

    Ma perché è così importante legalizzare il lavoro minorile? Lo spiega la National Youth Rights Association (NYRA, associazione nazionale per i diritti dei giovani, NdT):

    “…il lavoro minorile è vietato per legge, punto. I giovani pertanto dipendono finanziariamente dai genitori, pur essendo costretti a svolgere un lavoro gratis: la scuola.

    “Le leggi sul lavoro minorile sono state adottate per impedire che datori di lavoro o genitori sfruttino i minori, ma allo stesso tempo impediscono a questi ultimi di procurarsi il denaro senza l’aiuto dei genitori. Si dà per scontato che, lasciati liberi di procurarsi un lavoro, i giovani finirebbero intrappolati in qualche fabbrica a lavorare in condizioni disumane, come avveniva agli inizi del secolo scorso. Ma la causa allora era l’autorità dei genitori, i quali letteralmente vendevano i propri figli alla fabbrica per poi appropriarsi della loro paga. I figli non avevano voce in capitolo. D’altro canto, nelle aziende di famiglia, dove i giovani sotto i sedici anni possono lavorare, a sfruttarli sono i genitori che li trattano come capitale.

    “Se ai giovani fossero riconosciuti per legge diritti propri, al potere dei genitori di costringere i figli a fare lavori pesanti o pericolosi si opporrebbe la possibilità dei figli di cercare lavoro altrove, o più semplicemente di rifiutarsi un lavoro. Se i giovani avessero gli stessi diritti degli adulti, avrebbero più possibilità di migliorare le proprie condizioni. In una società in cui le credenziali date dall’istruzione e dalla carriera sono viste in modo flessibile e aperto, i giovani potrebbero vivere del proprio stipendio senza subire le costrizioni e le rigidità dell’attuale sistema. Potrebbero scegliere autonomamente un lavoro e non verrebbero sfruttati più di quanto non lo sia un lavoratore adulto…

    “Anche quando ai giovani è permesso lavorare, le ore lavorative sono limitate. Questo rende difficile guadagnare abbastanza da poter essere indipendenti.”

    Va da sé che la disoccupazione colpisce soprattutto i più giovani. Ancora la NYRA: “A differenza dei lavoratori adulti, che hanno anni di risparmi o che possono beneficiare dello stato sociale, i giovani hanno molte meno difese sia personali che istituzionali.

    Ovviamente, perché un minorenne abbia quell’autonomia di cui parla la NYRA bisogna abrogare i lacci legislativi: leggi che vietano di avere un conto in banca autonomo, di prendere o dare in affitto una casa, di vivere per conto proprio e di vivere dove si vuole, leggi che vietano le assenze ingiustificate e così via. Occorre insomma lasciarli liberi di decidere dove vivere e con chi. Questo significa libertà di lasciare la casa dove subiscono violenze o dove c’è chi li costringe a fare lavori duri per intascarne i soldi. Qualcuno finirà comunque a lavorare per la famiglia, ma ci sarebbero più possibilità di scelta. I minorenni che lavorano subiscono discriminazioni non solo legali ma anche sociali.

    Citiamo ancora dalla NYRA:

    “La difficoltà di trovare un lavoro non è solo un problema del mondo del lavoro, ma è in parte anche colpa della discriminazione subita dai lavoratori minorenni. Il “passing”, il voler passare per quello che non si è, è un problema che si osserva spesso in contesti razziali, di genere o di altri gruppi sociali: un membro di una minoranza oppressa cambia aspetto o atteggiamento così da “passare” per membro di un gruppo sociale privilegiato. Quando riguarda certi gruppi sociali, il passing è considerato degradante, sintomo di forte discriminazione. Nel caso dei giovanissimi, invece, passare per adulti è considerato normale, sensato. Il ragazzo che si presenta ad un colloquio per un lavoro indossa gli occhiali, si fa crescere la barba, cambia il proprio aspetto o comunque cerca di apparire più grande di quello che è. Essere giovani è chiaramente uno svantaggio quando si cerca un lavoro, ed è per questo che gli interessati fanno di tutto per non apparire giovani. Passing e disoccupazione giovanile sono un effetto della discriminazione in base all’età diffusa sul luogo di lavoro, e questo è un problema serio del nostro paese…

    “I giovani lavoratori hanno spesso la carriera bloccata, hanno meno incarichi di responsabilità e sono trattati con sufficienza a causa dell’età. Questa discriminazione basata sull’età produce effetti tangibili: può creare un luogo di lavoro ostile che allontana i giovani lavoratori.”

    Questo significa lottare per cambiare anche il modo in cui sono visti i giovani. Una lotta contro le barriere sociali e legali che è solo l’inizio, perché la discriminazione si presenta in tante forme.

    Cito sempre la NYRA:

    “I giovani che lavorano sono dichiaratamente discriminati sia dalle leggi che dalle politiche aziendali. Spesso la prima forma di discriminazione è il salario minimo. Il salario minimo nasce cento anni fa anche per combattere lo sfruttamento dei giovani lavoratori. Oggi, il salario minimo prevede deroghe al ribasso per i giovani. I giovani sono infatti l’eccezione del salario minimo federale di 7,25 dollari l’ora. A parità di incarico, il lavoratore sotto i vent’anni può ricevere un salario di appena 4,25 dollari l’ora. Mentre il salario minimo è cresciuto significativamente nel tempo, questo “minimo nel minimo” non cambia dal 1996. Non è neanche aggiornato all’inflazione.”

    Pur mantenendo l’opinione che il salario minimo sia da abolire, è però vero che la differenza di salario è un’evidente discriminazione che impedisce l’autonomia dei giovani dalla famiglia, e che rende difficile evadere da un ambiente fatto di violenza, incuria o comunque una vita indesiderabile. Secondo la NYRA questa differenza di salario, oltre che insensata dal punto di vista del mercato, produce effetti dannosi anche per gli altri lavoratori.

    “Di solito un lavoratore giovanissimo, data l’inesperienza, parte con un livello produttivo relativamente basso, ma il suo valore per l’azienda sale rapidamente. Il lavoratore raggiunge rapidamente un alto livello produttivo, che resta stabile per gran parte della vita lavorativa. Ad una certa età però la produttività comincia a calare. Se è legato al valore prodotto per l’azienda, il salario cala proporzionalmente. Ma tutti i lavoratori passano da un’iniziale paga bassa ad una sempre più alta, arrivando anche a prendere più di quello che producono in certi casi. Il risultato è che i lavoratori anziani sono pagati più della produttività a spese dei più giovani. Questa è una discriminazione ingiusta…

    “Noi crediamo che queste diffuse differenze salariali siano un male non solo per i lavoratori giovani, ma anche per i più anziani e addirittura per i datori di lavoro. Tutti danno per scontato che all’inizio la paga debba essere bassa per poi crescere col tempo, ma non c’è una ragione valida che giustifichi la cosa. Molti studi dimostrano che i giovani sono pagati meno di quanto producono e gli anziani di più. Spesso questo aggiustamento temporale del salario è considerato un modo di conquistare la fiducia e incrementare la produttività del lavoratore, ma noi pensiamo che si tratti di qualcosa che non sta al passo con i cambiamenti del mondo del lavoro e che sia semplicemente discriminatorio.

    “Oggi un lavoratore difficilmente lavora per lo stesso datore per tutta la vita. L’aggiustamento del salario mal si concilia con l’evoluzione delle aspettative e delle norme. Si tratta di una struttura salariale inadeguata, più rigida della forza lavoro che vorrebbe premiare. Poiché i lavoratori anziani sono pagati più di quanto non contribuiscano all’azienda, data la mobilità hanno meno probabilità di trovare un lavoro. E quando si devono tagliare i costi, sono i primi a farne le spese. E, considerato il loro alto valore in termini di esperienza, si tratta di un danno per tutti.

    “Le aziende che adottano una struttura salariale più piatta ed equa hanno salari più in sintonia con la produttività dei lavoratori, oltre che migliori possibilità di competere per l’assunzione di giovani di talento, e inoltre non sono incentivate a non assumere lavoratori anziani. Sistemi del genere danno il meglio sia ai lavoratori giovani che agli anziani ma anche alle stesse aziende.”

    Se vogliamo combattere queste discriminazioni, non basta abolire le leggi che colpiscono i giovani lavoratori: dobbiamo anche lottare per la sindacalizzazione del posto di lavoro. I sindacati hanno la possibilità di negoziare migliori condizioni e migliori salari per i lavoratori di tutte le età, con guadagni in termini di equità e sicurezza per i più giovani. La legalizzazione del lavoro minorile non riporta i bambini nelle miniere, è invece un primo passo verso il loro affrancamento. Perché se la lotta si ferma, allora sì, l’incubo dello sfruttamento durerà ancora molti anni.

    Le nostre traduzioni sono finanziate interamente da donazioni. Se vi piace quello che scriviamo, siete invitati a contribuire. Trovate le istruzioni su come fare nella pagina Sostieni C4SS: https://c4ss.org/sostieni-c4ss.

  • Maybe We Should Legalize Child Labor After All

    Recently there has been much fear surrounding the legalization of child labor in many states, but could legalizing child labor actually be a good thing? After all, the labor movement fought long and hard to ban child labor to protect children from exploitation. But some youth liberationists are challenging this perspective.

    In states like Iowa, Missouri, Ohio, and Arkansas, newly passed or pending laws allow companies to hire children without work permits and allow children to work longer hours under more dangerous conditions in places like construction sites, meat packing plants, and automobile factories.

    Meanwhile, the Biden administration is struggling to enforce existing federal regulations on child labor.

    The Department of Labor reported a 69 percent increase in the number of children…employed illegally by companies since 2018.

    While the fear of dangerous conditions is real, it is one that all workers face regardless of age. Legalizing child labor would actually allow for more legal recourse for young workers who face such conditions and allow for more oversite from government agencies and, more importantly, labor unions.
    ‎ ‎
    But why is legalizing child labor so important? The National Youth Rights Association explains it well:

    …the law prohibits most young people from working in the first place. This makes young people financially dependent on their parents, even though they’re forced to work one job without pay: their own schooling.

    While child labor laws were designed to protect young people from being exploited by businesses and parents, they keep young people from obtaining money legally without their parents’ help. It is usually assumed that, if youth were given the freedom to seek jobs, they would be coerced into working inhumane factory jobs like they were in the early 20th century. However, that happened as a result of the authority parents have over their children: parents essentially sold their children out to factories so they could use the money the youth brought home. The youth did not get a say in the matter. Still, in the family businesses and farms where children below 16 are allowed to work, their labor is exploited by parents who treat them like capital.

    If young people had legally recognized autonomous rights, a parents’ power to force their children into an abusive work environment would be limited by the youth’s ability to pack up and find work elsewhere, or to simply refuse. If youth were given equal rights to adults, they would have more options available to them to improve their situation. Furthermore, a society which treats education and career credentials in an open and flexible manner could even allow youth to earn liveable wages without being constrained by the rigidity of the current system. With these changes, youth would be able to choose jobs themselves and would not be exploited any more than adult workers…

    Even when youth are allowed to work, the number of hours they can work is often limited so that it’s still a challenge for them to earn enough income to live independently.”

    Obviously unemployment hurts young people more since, as the NYRA states, “[u]nlike older workers who should have years of savings to fall back on, or may be eligible for Social Security, Medicare or other age based entitlements; younger workers have much less of a personal and public safety net.
    ‎ ‎
    Of course for children to have the type of autonomy NYRA speaks of, we would also have to repeal runaway laws, laws that restrict children from opening independent bank accounts, renting or owning housing, living on their own, or choosing where they live, school truency laws, etc. thus allowing children to choose where they live and who they live with. This would mean that children could avoid living with abusive family or those who will coerce them into working dangerous jobs for their benefit. While some children will still end up working for the benefit of their family, they will have far more choice in the matter. Of course, Young workers face discrimination not just on a legal level, but also on a social level.
    ‎‎ ‎
    “Trouble finding work isn’t just a reality of the working world, it is partly the fault of discrimination against younger workers.  The concept of “passing” is widely studied in the context of race, gender and other social groups, where those of a disenfranchised minority adjust their appearance or demeanor to “pass” as a member of a favored group.  While generally seen as demeaning and a symptom of pervasive discrimination when other groups do it, it is accepted as common place and common sense for youth to pass as older.  Young people going to job interviews will wear glasses, grow beards, change their makeup and make other attempts to appear older than they are.  Youth is clearly a disadvantage when it comes to finding a job, so successful applicants do their best to distance themselves from their younger age.  The phenomena of passing and the terrible reality of unemployment among young people are clear signs that age discrimination is rampant in the work place, and a serious problem affecting our nation…

    Younger workers find themselves routinely being passed up for promotions, given less responsibility, and talked down to because of their age.  Such ageism not only has tangible effects: it can create a hostile work environment and drive younger workers away.”

    So this means fighting to shift societal views of the youth as well. However, even if we manage to combat such legal and social barriers, this is just the start since younger workers also face many forms of discrimination on the job.
    ‎ ‎
    “Younger workers face overt age discrimination in both laws and corporate policies.  The first form of discrimination they may encounter is often from the minimum wage itself.  The first minimum wages were set 100 years ago partly out of concern for young people working in sweat shops for extremely low wages.  Today however, the minimum wage explicitly supports much lower wages for young workers.  The Federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour contains an exception – an exception for youth.  Workers under the age of 20 can be legally paid only $4.25 an hour for the same work.  Even with a significant boost to the overall minimum wage, this “sub-minimum” wage has not changed since 1996. It has not even kept up with inflation.”
    While minimum wage laws should arguably be abolished, this wage gap is still a clear form of discrimination that makes it more difficult for youth to have autonomy from their families, making it more difficult to escape abusive, neglectful, or otherwise undesirable living situations. The NYRA argues that this sort of wage gap doesn’t even make sense from a market perspective and has adverse effects that harm other workers as well.
    “Typically, very young workers start out relatively unproductive, as they are new to the job, but their value to the company rises rapidly.  Before long they hit their maximum level of productivity and plateau there for the next few decades of their working life.  Eventually though, as workers age, their productivity begins to decline.  If your pay was tied to how much value you provide your employer you would see pay follow this general trajectory.  However all workers start their careers being paid little and seeing their compensation gradually increase over time even past the point of peak productivity.  This results in older workers being paid more than they are worth at the expense of younger workers. This is unjust discrimination…
    ‎ ‎
    We believe the massive age inequalities in pay are not only bad for young workers, but bad for older workers and companies as well.  We all take for granted that entry level pay will be low and increase over time, but there is no reasonable justification for this.  Numerous studies demonstrate that young workers are severely undercompensated for their labor and older workers are overcompensated for theirs.  Often this delayed-compensation arrangement is seen as a way to buy loyalty and continued productivity over the life of a worker, however we believe this structure is out of step with the changing world of work and flatly discriminatory.
    ‎ ‎
    Workers today are less likely to remain with a single employer for their lifespan.  Delayed-compensation models are out of step with these new expectations and norms.  Such pay structures are less flexible than the work force they seek to reward and unsuited to the task.  By paying older workers so much more than they contribute to the company, employers are much less likely to hire older workers and when seeking budget cuts, more likely to let them go.  Considering the greater value young workers provide, this is understandable, though harmful to all involved.
    ‎ ‎
    Companies that adopt a flatter, more equitable pay structure will find their compensation better matches up with the productivity of their workers, find themselves better able to compete for talented young workers, and also not have a disincentive to hire older workers.  Such a system would be better for older workers, younger workers and companies themselves.”
    In order to combat such discrimination, we need to not only fight to repeal the laws that harm young workers but also fight for workplace unions. Unions could negotiate fairer wages and working conditions for all workers, regardless of age, thus making it fairer and safer for children as well. Far from sending the children back into the mines, we could see the legalization of child labor as a step forward for youth liberation. Just don’t let the fight stop there or it really will be the exploitative nightmare many rightfully fear.

  • Bagaimana Jika Anakmu Trans?

    Oleh: James C. Wilson. Teks aslinya berjudul “What if Your Child Was Trans?” Diterjemahkan ke Bahasa Indonesia oleh Iman Amirullah.

    Saya telah bertahun-tahun mengadvokasi hak-hak trans, termasuk hak-hak trans remaja dan orang tua mereka, dengan pendampingan dokter, untuk memilih jenis layanan kesehatan yang mereka butuhkan. Saya melihat kebebasan ini sebagai bentuk menyelamatkan kehidupan.

    Meskipun begitu, saya berasal dari latar belakang konservatif, dimana sejauh yang saya tahu, banyak orang yang akan tidak setuju terhadap pandangan saya ini. Semua orang yang pernah terlibat dengan gerakan libertarianisme selama dekade terakhir tentu akan kerap menemui orang-orang transfobik dan reaksioner. Oleh sebab itu, saya kerap mendapat pertanyaan, yang sering kali bersifat menyindir, tentang bagaimana saya akan menghadapi anak yang menderita disforia gender. Pertanyaan-pertanyaan seperti “Apakah kamu akan mendorong mereka untuk mengidentifikasi mereka sesuka diri mereka sendiri dan mendaftarkan mereka pada puberty blocker begitu ia menginginkannya?” atau “Apakah aku akan dapat menerima jika anakku melakukan operasi pengubahan jenis kelamin pada usia yang sangat muda?” Saya akan lebih memilih untuk menjawab pertanyaan ini melalui diskusi tentang apa yang akan saya lakukan dan tidak akan saya lakukan.

    Jika saya merupakan ayah dari seorang anak, yang sedari lahir kukenal sebagai seorang laki-laki, dan kemudian anak ini pada usia lima tahun, merasa atau menginginkan dirinya menjadi seorang perempuan, apa yang akan kulakukan? Jika ini hanya terjadi sekali saja atau dalam fase singkat, saya mungkin berasumsi dia sedang menguji reaksi saya, melakukan eksperimen pikiran, mencari perhatian, atau dimotivasi oleh rasa cemburu terhadap teman-teman wanitanya. Ini mungkin memicu perbincangan dengannya, tapi saya ragu saya akan bereaksi keras, dan kemungkinan besar akan terlupakan dalam satu atau dua hari.

    Namun, jika anak ini memiliki keyakinan yang kuat, ngotot, dan konsisten untuk menyatakan bahwa  ia adalah seorang perempuan dan terus-menerus mengungkapkan keyakinan ini tanpa henti selama bertahun-tahun. Pada antara usia 5 dan 10 tahun, jika ia terus mengungkapkan keinginannya untuk menjadi seorang perempuan, dan secara rutin mencoba untuk terlibat pada aktivitas yang bersifat feminin dan mengenakan pakaian feminin tanpa ada tanda-tanda bahwa hal ini didorong secara eksternal, maka ya, saya akan mengambil tindakan lebih lanjut.

    Saya akan mencoba untuk tidak secara aktif mendorong atau mendiskreditkan keinginannya. Namun, saya akan mengajukan banyak pertanyaan: “Bagaimana yang kamu maksud? Dari mana kamu mengetahui hal ini? Apa yang membuatmu berpikir seperti ini, dll?” Saya tidak akan sekadar bertanya, namun melakukan apa yang seharusnya dilakukan semua orang tua: mengenal anak saya, dan menghadirkan suasana di mana mereka merasa nyaman berbicara secara terbuka dan menjadi diri mereka sendiri. Saya akan menunjukkan bahwa saya aman untuk diajak bicara.

    Terlalu banyak remaja gay atau gender non-konformis, terutama mereka yang berasal dari keluarga dan komunitas konservatif, hidup dalam ketakutan bahwa bersikap terbuka tentang siapa diri mereka akan mengakibatkan pelecehan, pengucilan, cemoohan, atau berbagai hal lain yang lebih buruk lagi. Para transgender jauh lebih besar kemungkinannya untuk menjadi tunawisma, kehilangan pekerjaan, dan dikucilkan dari teman-teman dan keluarga mereka dibandingkan dengan para cis, dan pencegahan terhadap masalah tersebut sebenarnya dimulai dari rumah.

    Saya juga akan mempelajari secara ekstensif semua literatur yang telah diverifikasi oleh rekan sejawat tentang jenis perilaku yang ditunjukkan anak tersebut dan mencari nasehat profesional dari berbagai profesional kesehatan mental sebelum menyetujui segala bentuk pengobatan. Jika, pada saat itu, dapat ditunjukkan bahwa anak tersebut adalah seseorang yang, terlepas dari apa pun yang saya katakan atau lakukan, akan memilih untuk bertransisi menjadi orang dewasa dan menjalani sisa hidupnya sebagai seorang wanita, saya akan menyetujui puberty blocker, karena ketika saya menolak melakukan hal tersebut, saya justru akan menghambat kebutuhannya.

    Ketika ada bukti ilmiah bahwa penggunaan puberty blocker berdampak positif untuknya untuk jangka panjang, barulah saya akan menyetujuinya. Penting untuk dipahami bahwa dengan menolak akses puberty blocker bagi anak dengan disforia gender, Anda memaksa mereka melewati masa pubertas yang akan membuat tubuh mereka tidak seperti yang dirasakan oleh psikologi internal mereka dan kemungkinan besar akan memperburuk kesehatan mental mereka serta meningkatkan kemungkinan mereka untuk melakukan bunuh diri. Seharusnya tidak sulit untuk memahami mengapa seseorang yang kebahagiaannya ada pada penampilan sebagai sosok feminin akan dirugikan saat melalui masa pubertas sebagai laki-laki, dan sebaliknya bagi seseorang yang ingin tampil sebagai maskulin, dipaksa melalui masa pubertas seabagai perempuan. Lebih jauh lagi, jika negara melakukan hal tersebut maka hal tersebut merupakan bentuk penindasan yang dilakukan oleh pemerintah terhadap seseorang yang bertentangan dengan kebebasan individu dan temuan penelitian medis yang relevan.

    Saya akan menggunakan kesempatan ini untuk menunjukkan bahwa tinjauan tahun 2020 oleh Child and Adolescent Mental Health menemukan bahwa puberty blocker terkait dengan “hasil positif seperti penurunan bunuh diri di masa dewasa, peningkatan pengaruh dan fungsi psikologis, serta peningkatan kehidupan sosial.”

    Selain itu, survei tahun 2020 yang dipublikasikan di Pediatrics menemukan bahwa “Ada hubungan terbalik yang signifikan antara pemberian pengobatan dengan puberty blocker selama masa remaja dan keinginan bunuh diri seumur hidup di kalangan transgender dewasa yang menginginkan pengobatan ini.”

    Studi tahun 2022 yang dipublikasikan dalam Journal of American Medical Association menemukan fakta bahwa “mereka yang menerima terapi gender, termasuk puberty blocker dan terapi hormon, memiliki kemungkinan 60% lebih rendah untuk mengalami depresi sedang atau berat dan 73% lebih rendah kemungkinan untuk melakukan bunuh diri usai menjalani terapi hingga 12 bulan.”

    Demikian pula untuk penggunaan hormon cros-sex yang diresepkan dokter, sebagaimana dicatat dalam studi tahun 2022 dari Journal of Adolescent Health, yang menemukan “penggunaan (terapi hormon) GAHT dikaitkan dengan kemungkinan lebih rendah untuk mengalami depresi dan keinginan bunuh diri  dibandingkan dengan mereka yang menginginkan GAHT tetapi tidak mendapatkannya. Bagi remaja di bawah usia 18 tahun, GAHT dikaitkan dengan kemungkinan lebih rendah untuk mengalami depresi dan keinginan bunuh diri dalam satu tahun.

    Pada titik percakapan ini, saya kemudian akan ditanya tentang operasinya. Apakah saya akan “baik-baik saja” jika alat kelamin anak saya dimodifikasi melalui operasi? Seringkali, ungkapan “dipotong” atau “dimutilasi” dilontarkan,” dan sering kali, ada anggapan bahwa hal ini akan terjadi pada usia yang sangat muda.

    Operasi penggantian alat kelamin, sebagai pengobatan untuk disforia gender, biasanya dilakukan pada orang berusia 18 tahun ke atas, sehingga sebagian besar dari pertanyaan ini tidak realistis. Artinya, semakin ekstrim intervensi medis yang diusulkan, dan semakin muda orang yang menerimanya, semakin besar pula beban pembuktian yang harus dipenuhi oleh orang yang mengusulkan agar saya dapat menyetujuinya.

    Saya pernah ditanya dalam konteks ini: “Anda tidak memiliki satu masalah pun dengan hal tersebut, dan Anda akan 1000% menyetujui SEMUA hal tersebut?” Saya menjawab: “Tidak, saya tidak 1000% atau bahkan 100% setuju dengan SEMUA itu. Faktanya, itu semua membuatku agak tidak nyaman. Namun, saya akan melakukan tindakan apapun yang didukung oleh bukti empiris daripada sekadar mengikuti emosi saya.”

    Saya pikir ada ruang untuk perdebatan yang terbuka ​​mengenai seberapa tepat pembatasan medis untuk remaja trans, terutama pada usia yang lebih muda. Namun penentangan absolut dari kelompok sosial konservatif tidak nampak seperti perdebatan tersebut.

    Debat yang terbuka ​​melibatkan mengetahui apa yang Anda bicarakan, mengakui di mana Anda kurang ahli, mengakui bahwa Anda mungkin salah tentang suatu hal, dan mengakui poin-poin dan kekhawatiran yang dibuat oleh pihak lain. Hal ini mencakup mengetahui apa yang dikatakan oleh penelitian yang telah diverifikasi oleh rekan sejawat, dan memahami topik-topik seperti standar diagnosis, dan kelayakan untuk mendapatkan pengobatan. Hal ini harus dilakukan oleh orang-orang dengan latar belakang medis yang sesuai, dan bukan oleh politisi, provokator, dan tradisionalis.

    Terlepas dari gambaran yang ditampilkan oleh media sayap kanan, penelitian mengenai topik ini sebenarnya cenderung menemukan hasil positif dari operasi penegasan gender. Misalnya, studi tahun 2021 dari peneliti Harvard yang menemukan bahwa operasi penegasan gender mengurangi tekanan psikologis dan keinginan bunuh diri, dan bahkan mengurangi kebiasaan merokok.

    Meskipun demikian, saya tidak akan begitu saja mendorong saran apa pun yang ditolak: saya akan mempertanyakan, membantah, berperan menjadi kontrarian, mengeksplorasi kemungkinan pilihan lain, dan mendapatkan opini kedua, ketiga, keempat, dan kelima di setiap langkah proses. Saya mungkin akan mondar-mandir sepanjang malam, bertanya-tanya apakah saya menangani situasi ini dengan tepat. Semuanya akan sangat menegangkan bagi saya. Namun, yang pasti tidak akan saya lakukan adalah mengabaikan apa yang dialami anak saya, dan saya juga tidak akan mencoba memaksakan peran gender pada anak saya, seperti yang saya lihat banyak kaum konservatif sosial katakan akan mereka lakukan dan seperti yang telah dilakukan banyak orang, kemungkinan besar akan berakibat tragis.

    Para tradisionalis dan konservatif selalu dengan penuh semangat untuk mendemonisasi kaum trans, sebagai cara untuk menjaga basis sosial-politik mereka. Sebagai tanggapan, para politisi Partai Republik secara agresif mengajukan dan mengesahkan ratusan rancangan undang-undang anti-trans di seluruh Amerika Serikat. RUU ini akan meningkatkan kesengsaraan, depresi, dan bunuh diri. Selain itu, retorika yang menyertainya kemungkinan besar akan mendorong tindakan kekerasan terhadap orang-orang yang dianggap tidak sesuai dengan peran gender yang ada di masyarakat. Semua argumen pendukung mereka melibatkan kesalahan dalam mengartikan bukti, konspirasi, dan menggunakan emosi serta kemarahan secara keliru. Namun, saya rasa hasil seperti ini sudah dapat ditebak untuk terjadi pada negara-negara yang reaksioner dan otoriter, seperti yang selalu terjadi pada kaum konservatif sosial.

    Seluruh hasil publikasi didanai sepenuhnya oleh donasi. Jika kalian menyukai karya-karya kami, kalian dapat berkontribusi dengan berdonasi. Temukan petunjuk tentang cara melakukannya di halaman Dukung C4SS: https://c4ss.org/dukung-c4ss.

  • Что, если твой ребенок станет трансгендерным человеком?

    James C. Wilson, What if Your Child Was Trans? June 8 2023.

    На протяжении многих лет я выступаю за права трансгендерных людей. В это входит право трансгендерной молодежи и их родителей, под руководством своих врачей, получать те медицинские услуги, которые они считают нужными.  Я считаю эту свободу жизненно необходимой.

    При этом я из довольно консервативной среды, в которой многие люди, которых я знаю, будут не согласны со мной. Любой, кто участвовал в либертарном движении в последнее десятилетие, непременно знает людей с глубоко трансфобными и реакционными взглядами. Поэтому меня часто спрашивают, зачастую с обвинениями, о том, как бы я отнесся к рождению ребенка с гендерной дисфорией. Это вопросы вроде: «Вы бы поощряли их идентифицировать себя так, как им нравится, и при первой же возможности записали бы их на блокаторы полового созревания?» Или: «Буду ли я полностью согласен, если их гениталии изменят хирургическим путем в невероятно раннем возрасте?» Я хотел бы воспользоваться возможностью ответить на эти вопросы, обсудив, что бы я сделал и чего бы я не сделал.

    Если бы я был отцом ребенка, которого я с рождения признаю мальчиком, и этот ребенок в возрасте пяти лет заявил, что он девочка или хочет быть девочкой, что бы я сделал? Если бы это был единичный случай или короткая фаза, я бы предположил, что он проверяет мою реакцию, проводит мысленный эксперимент, ищет внимания или ревнует к сверстницам. Это может вызвать какой-то разговор, но я сомневаюсь, что отреагирую бурно, и, скорее всего, забуду про это через день или два.

    Однако, если у ребенка есть стойкое, настойчивое и последовательное убеждение, что он должен быть девочкой, и он постоянно выражает это убеждение без побуждения в течение нескольких лет подряд, в возрасте от 5 до 10 лет, если это убеждение просто не ослабевает, и этот ребенок регулярно ищет возможность заниматься стереотипно женскими вещами и носить женскую одежду без каких-либо признаков того, что это побуждается извне, тогда да, я бы предпринял дальнейшие действия.

    Я бы постарался не поощрять и не препятствовать этому убеждению. Но при этом я бы задавал много вопросов: «Что ты имеешь в виду? Откуда у тебя эта идея? Почему ты так думаешь и т.д.?». Я бы не просто задавал вопросы, а делал то, что должны делать все родители: узнавал своего ребенка и создавал обстановку, в которой ему было бы комфортно открыто говорить и быть самим собой. Я бы показал, что со мной безопасно разговаривать.

    Слишком много молодых людей, которые являются геями или гендерно неконформными, особенно в консервативных семьях и сообществах, живут в страхе, что открытое признание своей сущности приведет к жестокому обращению, отчуждению, насмешкам или чему-то хуже. Вероятность того, что транс-люди окажутся бездомными, потеряют работу и будут отчуждены от бывших подрузей и семьи, несоизмеримо выше, чем вероятность того, что это произойдет с цисгендерными людьми, и предотвращение этих проблем начинается дома.

    Я бы также тщательно изучил всю рецензируемую литературу о поведении ребенка и получил профессиональное мнение нескольких специалист_ок по психическому здоровью, прежде чем соглашаться на любую форму медицинского вмешательства. Если в тот момент будет доказано, что этот ребенок — тот, кто, независимо от того, что я скажу или сделаю, решит совершить переход в период взрослости и прожить остаток жизни как женщина, я одобрю применение блокаторов полового созревания, потому что отказ от этого будет вредить их благополучию.

    Если будут доказательства, что в долгосрочной перспективе благополучие этого человека будет лучше от приема пубертатных блокаторов, только тогда я одобрю это. Важно понимать, что, отказывая человеку с гендерной дисфорией в приеме блокаторов, вы вынуждаете его пройти через половое созревание, которое сделает его тело менее похожим на то, которое, по мнению его внутренней психологии, должно быть у него, и, вероятно, ухудшит его психическое здоровье и увеличит риск суицида. Нетрудно понять, почему человек, чье самочувствие связано с представлением себя как феминной, будет подорван прохождением через мужское половое созревание, и наоборот, того, кто хочет представлять себя как маскулинного, заставят пройти через женское половое созревание. Более того, если бы это делало государство, это было бы нанесенным государством вредом, который противоречит личной свободе и результатам соответствующих медицинских исследований.

    Пользуясь случаем, хочу отметить, что обзор 2020 года, опубликованный в журнале Child and Adolescent Mental Health, показал, что блокаторы полового созревания были связаны с такими «положительными результатами, как снижение суицидальности во взрослой жизни, улучшение аффекта и психологического функционирования, а также улучшение социальной жизни».

    Также обзор 2020 года, опубликованный в Pediatrics, обнаружил, что «существует значительная обратная связь между лечением по подавлению пубертата в подростковом возрасте и суицидальными мыслями в течение жизни среди трансгендерных взрослых, которые когда-либо хотели получить такое лечение».

    Исследование 2022 года, опубликованное в журнале Journal of the American Medical Association, показало: «Получение гормональной терапии, включая блокаторы полового созревания и гормональные препараты, было связано с 60% более низкой вероятностью умеренной или тяжелой депрессии и 73% более низкой вероятностью самоубийства в течение 12-месячного периода наблюдения».

    Аналогичным образом, в отношении использования назначенных врачом межполовых гормонов, как отмечается в исследовании 2022 года, опубликованном в журнале Journal of Adolescent Health, которое показало, что «применение заместительной гормональной терапии (ЗГТ) было связано с более низкой вероятностью возникновения недавней депрессии и серьезных мыслей о самоубийстве по сравнению с теми, кто хотел получить ЗГТ, но не получил ее. Для молодых людей в возрасте до 18 лет применение ЗГТ было связано с более низкой вероятностью недавней депрессии и попыток самоубийства в прошлом году».

    На этой стадии разговора меня спросят об операции. Буду ли я «совершенно не против», если гениталии моего ребенка будут изменены хирургическим путем? Так часто звучат фразы «отрезать» или «изуродовать», и часто предполагается, что это произойдет во время созревания.

    Генитальная хирургия, как метод лечения гендерной дисфории, обычно проводится людям 18 лет и старше, что делает этот аргумент соломенного чучела нереальным. Тем не менее, чем экстремальнее предлагаемое медицинское вмешательство и чем моложе человек, которому оно предлагается, тем большее бремя доказывания должно быть предоставлено человеком, предлагающим такое вмешательство, чтобы я его одобрил.

    Однажды меня спросили в следующем контексте: «У тебя нет ни одной проблемы с этим, и ты бы на 1000% поощрял ВСЕ это?». Я ответил: «Нет, я не на 1000% и даже не на 100% согласен со всем этим. На самом деле, все это вызывает у меня дискомфорт. Тем не менее, я буду предпринимать любые действия, подкрепленные эмпирическими фактами, а не просто следовать своим эмоциям».

    Я думаю, что есть место для честных дебатов о том, насколько уместен медицинский гейткипинг при оказании помощи трансгендерным людям, особенно молодым. Но абсолютистская оппозиция, которую я вижу со стороны социальных консерваторов — это не то, на что похожи эти дебаты.

    Честная дискуссия предполагает знание того, о чем вы говорите, признание того, что вам не хватает опыта, признание того, что вы можете ошибаться в том или ином вопросе, а также признание моментов и опасений, высказанных другой стороной. Она также предполагает понимание того, что говорят рецензируемые исследования, и знакомство с такими темами, как стандарты диагностики и право на лечение. Этим должны заниматься в первую очередь люди с соответствующим медицинским образованием, а не политики, профессиональные разжигатели ненависти, борцы за культуру и продавцы жалоб.

    Вопреки картине, которую рисуют правые СМИ, исследования на эту тему на самом деле показывают положительные результаты операций по смене пола. Например, исследование, проведенное в 2021 году гарвардскими учеными, показало, что такая операция уменьшает стресс и суицидальные мысли, а также способствует отказу от курения.

    При этом я бы не стал просто поддерживать любое предложение, которое отвергается: я бы сомневался, спорил, играл в адвоката дьявола, изучал другие варианты и получал второе, третье, четвертое и пятое мнение на каждом этапе. Скорее всего, я бы метался и ворочался всю ночь, размышляя, правильно ли я поступаю в данной ситуации. Все это было бы для меня большим стрессом. Но я бы не стал просто отмахнуться от того, что испытывает мой ребенок, и не стал бы навязывать ему гендерную конформность, как, по моим наблюдениям, поступают многие социальные консерваторы, и как поступали многие люди, что, вероятно, привело к трагическим результатам.

    Консервативные борцы за культуру намерены демонизировать транс-людей, как средство вовлечения своей базы. В итоге политики-республиканцы агрессивно продвигают и принимают сотни антитранс-законов по всей территории США. Эти законопроекты приведут к увеличению человеческих страданий, депрессии и самоубийствам. Кроме того, риторика, которая сопровождает их, скорее всего, будет способствовать актам насилия в отношении гендерно-неконформных людей. Все аргументы в их поддержку включают в себя неверное описание доказательств, отступления к конспирологии и ошибочные апелляции к эмоциям и возмущению. Но, полагаю, этого следует ожидать от реакционных этатистов, каковыми всегда были социальные консерваторы.

  • What if Your Child Was Trans?

    I have for years been an advocate of trans rights. This includes the rights of trans youth and their parents, with the guidance of their doctors, to pursue whatever health care they see fit. I see this freedom as life-saving.

    That said, I am from a rather conservative background, in which many people I know disagree with this stance.  Anyone who has been involved in the libertarian movement over the last decade inevitably knows people with deeply transphobic and reactionary beliefs. As such, I inevitably get questions, often accusatory, about how I would deal with having a child with gender dysphoria. These are questions like “Would you encourage them to identify however they like and sign them up for puberty blockers at the first opportunity?” Or “Would I be completely fine with them having their genitals surgically altered at some unbelievably young age?” I’d like to take the opportunity to answer these questions by discussing what I would do and what I would not do.

    If I was the father of a child, whom I recognized as a boy since birth, and that child, at the age of five, claimed to be a girl or said he wanted to be a girl, what would I do? If this was just a one-off event or short-lived phase, I would probably presume he was testing my reaction, entertaining a thought experiment, looking for attention, or motivated by jealousy towards his female peers. It might spark some conversation, but I doubt I’d react strongly, and it would likely be forgotten in a day or two.

    If, however, the child in question has a persistent, insistent, and consistent belief that ought to be a girl and continuously expresses this belief unprompted for years on end, between the ages of 5 and 10, if this belief simply would not let up, and this child routinely sought out opportunities to engage in stereotypically feminine activities and wear feminine clothes without any sign of this being externally encouraged, then yes I would take further action.

    I would try to avoid actively encouraging or discouraging this belief. However, I would ask many questions: “What do you mean? Where did you get this idea? What makes you think this, etc.?” I would not just ask questions, but do what all parents should do: get to know my child, and provide a setting where they are comfortable talking openly and being themselves. I would show that I am safe to talk to.

    Too many young people who are gay or gender non-conforming, especially those in conservative families and communities, live in fear that being open about who they are will bring about abuse, alienation, ridicule, or worse. Trans people are disproportionately more likely to end up homeless, out of a job, and alienated from former friends and family than cis people, and the prevention of those consequences starts at home.

    I would also extensively review all the peer-reviewed literature on the type of behavior the child is exhibiting and get the professional opinions of multiple mental health professionals before agreeing to any form of treatment. If, at that point, it can be demonstrated that this child is someone who, irrespective of anything I say or do, would choose to transition as an adult and live the rest of their life as a woman, I would approve of puberty blockers because to not do so would be a detriment to their wellbeing.

    If the evidence shows this person’s long-term prospects for wellbeing are better taking puberty blockers, only then would I sign off on them. It is essential to understand that by denying a gender dysphoric person puberty blockers, you are forcing them to go through a puberty that will make their body less like the one their internal psychology tells them they should have and likely worsen their mental health and increase their suicidality. It should not be hard to understand why someone whose well being is tied to presenting as feminine would be undermined by going through a male puberty, and vice versa for someone wanting to present as masculine, being forced to go through a female puberty. Furthermore, for the state to do so would be government-imposed harm on the individual that goes against personal freedom and the findings of the relevant medical research.

    I’ll take this opportunity to point out that A 2020 review in Child and Adolescent Mental Health found puberty blockers were associated with such “positive outcomes as decreased suicidality in adulthood, improved affect and psychological functioning, and improved social life.”

    Also, a 2020 survey published in Pediatrics found that “There is a significant inverse association between treatment with pubertal suppression during adolescence and lifetime suicidal ideation among transgender adults who ever wanted this treatment.”

    2022 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found “a recipient of gender-affirming care, including puberty blockers and gender-affirming hormones, was associated with 60% lower odds of moderate or severe depression and 73% lower odds of suicidality over a 12-month follow-up.”

    Likewise, for the use of doctor-prescribed cross-sex hormones, as noted in a 2022 study from the Journal of Adolescent Health, which found “use of (gender-affirming hormone therapy) GAHT was associated with lower odds of recent depression and seriously considering suicide compared to those who wanted GAHT but did not receive it. For youth under age 18, GAHT was associated with lower odds of recent depression and of a past-year suicide attempt.”

    At this point in the conversation, I’ll then get asked about the surgery. Would I be “totally fine” with my child’s genitals being surgically modified? So often, the phrases “cut off” or “mutilated” get thrown around,” and often, it is suggested that this would happen at some prosperously young age.

    Genital surgery, as a treatment for gender dysphoria, usually is done on people 18 or older, making this a mostly unrealistic strawman. That said, the more extreme the medical intervention proposed, and the younger the person receiving it, the greater the burden of proof that would need to be met by the person proposing it for me to approve it.

    I was once asked in this context: “You don’t have one single issue with it, and you would 1000% encourage ALL of it?” I answered: “No, I’m not 1000% or even one 100% ok with ALL of it. In fact, it all makes me rather uncomfortable. Still, I would pursue whatever action is supported by the empirical evidence rather than simply follow my emotions.”

    I think there is room for honest debate on how much medical gatekeeping is appropriate for trans care, especially at younger ages. But the absolutist opposition I see from social conservatives is not what that debate looks like.

    Honest debate involves knowing what you are talking about, acknowledging where you lack expertise, acknowledging you may be wrong about a given point, and acknowledging points and concerns made by the other side. It involves knowing what the peer reviewed research says, and being familiar with such topics as standards of diagnosis, and eligibility for treatment.  It should primarily be done by people with the appropriate medical backgrounds, and not by politicians, professional outrage peddlers, culture warriors and grievance merchants.

    Despite the picture rightwing media outlets paint, studies on the topic actually tend to find positive results from gender-affirming surgery. For example, this 2021 study from Havard researchers that found gender-affirming surgery reduces psychological distress and suicidal ideation and even decreases smoking.

    That said, I would not simply encourage any suggestion that gets thrown out either: I would question, gainsay, play devil’s advocate, explore other options, and get second, third, fourth, and fifth opinions at every step of the process. I’d likely toss and turn all night, wondering if I was handling the situation appropriately. The whole thing would be immensely stressful to me. What I would not do, though, is simply dismiss out of hand what my child is experiencing, nor would I try to force gender conformity on my child, as I’ve seen many social conservatives say they would do and as numerous people have done, likely with tragic results.

    Conservative culture warriors are determined to demonize trans people, as a means of driving engagement from their base. In response Republican politicians have been aggressively putting forward and passing hundreds of anti-trans bills throughout the United States. These bills will increase human misery, depression, and suicidality. Also, the rhetoric that goes with them will likely encourage acts of violence against gender non-conforming people. All their supporting arguments involve mischaracterizing the evidence, retreats to conspiracism, and fallacious appeals to emotion and outrage. But, I guess that is to be expected of reactionary, authoritarian statists, which social conservatives have always been. 

  • Permitiendo el abuso de niños en Florida

    De Thomas J. Webb. Artículo original: Enabling Child Abuse in Florida, del 12 de mayo de 2022. Traducido al español por Camila Figueroa.

    “Los niños no son propiedad de nadie: no son propiedad de los padres, ni siquiera de la sociedad.
    Sólo pertenecen a su propia libertad futura”.
    -Bakunin

    Como parte de la reciente ola de legislación dirigida a las personas LGBTQIA, especialmente a los menores trans, Florida aprobó una ley anunciada por sus defensores como protección de los derechos de los padres, la HB 1557. Ha inspirado disposiciones similares en otros estados, como la HB 332 de Alabama. Merece la pena analizar lo que realmente hace y lo que probablemente pretende conseguir.

    El proyecto de ley tiene una serie de disposiciones, muchas de ellas redactadas de forma tan imprecisa que se convierte en una especie de prueba Rorschach para detectar las inclinaciones políticas. Gran parte de los comentarios sobre el proyecto de ley en los medios de comunicación han girado en torno al aspecto de la discusión en el aula, con detractores que lo llaman el proyecto de ley “no digas gay” y defensores que insisten en que se trata simplemente de restricciones de sentido común en las lecciones inapropiadas para la edad. En realidad, el proyecto de ley es mucho peor de lo que el apodo “no digas gay” quiere hacer creer, aunque la redacción no prohíbe la palabra gay en todos los casos. La disposición sobre la discusión en el aula es la siguiente:

    El proyecto de ley prohíbe la instrucción en el aula sobre la orientación sexual o la identidad de género en el jardín de infancia hasta el tercer grado o de una manera que no sea apropiada para la edad o el desarrollo de los estudiantes.

    No está claro qué constituye “instrucción en el aula sobre la orientación sexual o la identidad de género”. ¿Acaso señalar que un personaje de un libro es una niña es una discusión sobre la identidad de género? ¿Permite esto un doble rasero en el que las parejas heterosexuales, pero no las homosexuales, pueden aparecer en una historia? Nos queda la duda de cuál será el efecto real en las aulas.

    El mecanismo de aplicación es permitir a los padres la capacidad de demandar a las escuelas por lo que creen que son violaciones de esta ley. Esto significará que es posible que las escuelas cumplan con cualquier lectura razonable de la ley, y aun así se enfrenten a juicios largos y costosos de los padres que tienen diferentes ideas de lo que es o no es apropiado para la edad. Sabiendo esto, es probable que las escuelas adopten políticas diseñadas para evitarlo, yendo más allá del texto literal de la ley. Esta es probablemente la intención de la vaguedad y ciertamente el efecto. Como explica el Instituto Cato (citado por Rebecca Watson)

    Las leyes vagas entrañan tres peligros básicos: En primer lugar, pueden perjudicar a los inocentes al no advertir del delito. En segundo lugar, fomentan la aplicación arbitraria y discriminatoria porque las leyes vagas delegan la aplicación y la interpretación de la ley en funcionarios individuales. En tercer lugar, como los ciudadanos tomarán precauciones adicionales para evitar violar la ley, las leyes vagas inhiben nuestra libertad individual.

    Con una ley tan imprecisa, las intenciones de los proponentes se convierten en un contexto adicional importante. Uno de los patrocinadores del proyecto de ley HB 1557, Dennis Baxley, dio su razonamiento como la reducción de la cantidad de personas que salen:

    Los proponentes del proyecto de ley pueden decir que simplemente quieren proteger los derechos de los padres, pero el patrocinador del proyecto de ley reveló sus verdaderas intenciones el lunes. El senador estatal Dennis Baxley dijo que se sentía profundamente incómodo con lo que considera un “verdadero cambio de tendencia” en la sociedad. “Mi hijo es psiquiatra y le dije: ‘¿Por qué ahora todo el mundo se dedica a salir del armario cuando está en la escuela?”. dijo Baxley en el pleno del Senado. “Y realmente hay una dinámica de preocupación de cuánto de estos son tipos genuinos de experiencias y cuántos de ellos son sólo niños probando diferentes tipos de cosas”. De hecho, Baxley cree que cuando los chicos salen del armario, “de la noche a la mañana, son una celebridad”.

    La ideología de género tradicionalista parece frágil. Si un niño se vuelve gay al enterarse de la existencia de personas homosexuales, entonces es sólo cuestión de tiempo que eso ocurra. Los Dennis Baxley del mundo deberían calmarse y dejar que las viejas ideas que aparentemente penden de un hilo fracasen por sus propios méritos.

    La disposición sobre la enseñanza en las aulas, que (como podemos ver) no trata de prevenir el grooming o la educación sexual inapropiada para la edad, es sólo una línea de esta ley. La cosa se pone peor. La ley también tiene disposiciones para impedir que los niños confíen información sobre sí mismos al profesorado sin que se la revelen a sus padres:

    El proyecto de ley prohíbe que un distrito escolar mantenga procedimientos que requieran que el personal del distrito escolar oculte a los padres, o anime a un estudiante a ocultar, información relacionada con la salud mental, emocional o física del estudiante o su bienestar. Los procedimientos del distrito escolar pueden autorizar al personal del distrito escolar a retener información sólo por una creencia razonable de que la divulgación sometería al estudiante a abuso, abandono o negligencia.

    Esto constituye una salida del armario obligatoria. Nadie sabe mejor que el propio niño LGBTQIA quién es seguro para salir del armario y es importante que tenga todas las herramientas que necesita para navegar por este espinoso paisaje. Para algunos, es más seguro salir del armario con sus padres que con el profesorado de la escuela. Para otros, es al revés. Este proyecto de ley sustituye el conocimiento específico del niño por el juicio de los empleados del gobierno. La última línea, que permite excepciones en caso de sospecha de abuso, es importante y me alegro de que esté ahí. Sin embargo, es poco probable que evite todos los casos de abuso o negligencia por revelación.

    Si un niño ya prefiere que sus padres no lo sepan, eso es motivo suficiente para respetar sus deseos. Esta disposición pone al niño a merced del profesorado, que puede no entender del todo la situación o incluso no tener en cuenta los intereses del niño. La divulgación siempre es un comportamiento poco ético, incluso si no crees que estás poniendo a la persona en peligro. Esta ley obliga a dicho comportamiento poco ético por parte del profesorado de la escuela.

    Esto es importante porque los niños LGBTQIA son maltratados por padres insolidarios de muchas maneras. A algunos los echan de casa o se escapan para evitar problemas en el hogar. Según un estudio realizado en 2017 por ChapinHall, los jóvenes LGBT tienen una tasa un 120% más alta de personas sin hogar. True Colors United, una organización benéfica que trabaja con jóvenes LGBTQ sin hogar, estima que el 40% de los jóvenes sin hogar son LGBTQ en su análisis de 2015.

    Otros son sometidos a crueles y tortuosas “terapias de conversión”, que no están prohibidas en todo el estado de Florida, aunque existen prohibiciones a nivel local, como en Miami. Aquellos que no son sometidos a terapia de conversión suelen ser, al menos, objeto de comentarios negativos, de una mala interpretación deliberada del género o de cualquier otro castigo por el delito de ser ellos mismos. En resumen, esta ley permite el abuso.

    Otra disposición de la ley que merece más atención es cómo permite la microgestión del uso de todos los servicios escolares relacionados con la salud. Esto no sólo afectará a los niños LGBTQIA. La ley especifica que cualquier cambio en el uso de los servicios debe ser notificado y, además, permite a los padres optar por no recibir los servicios con antelación.

    Al comienzo de cada año escolar, un distrito escolar debe notificar a los padres de todos los servicios de salud ofrecidos en la escuela de su estudiante y proporcionar a los padres la oportunidad de consentir individualmente, o rechazar, cada servicio.

    Esta ley se hizo pensando en los niños transexuales, para que los padres puedan bloquear los aspectos de la transición social relacionados con la administración escolar, y que en sí misma roza la terapia de conversión abusiva. Sin embargo, eso también significa que cualquier niño que acuda a la enfermera o al consejero escolar por algo que podría no ser seguro revelar a sus padres ya no puede hacerlo sin que sus padres se enteren, a menos que puedan alegarles que dicha revelación dará lugar a abusos. ¿Le dijeron a un consejero que estaban siendo abusados en casa? El niño está ahora a merced de ese consejero para que sus padres no se enteren. ¿Diagnosticó una enfermera a un menor un embarazo o una ETS? El mecanismo de aplicación de la ley puede hacer que algunos profesores teman la ira de los padres que descubran que se les ha ocultado algo.

    La posibilidad de excluirse de los servicios podría significar que los padres pueden anular las preferencias de sus hijos negándoles medicamentos potencialmente necesarios. Digamos que el padre es un anti-vacuna pero su hijo no lo es. La redacción de esta ley sugiere que los padres podrán optar por no vacunar a sus hijos en caso de que se les proporcione en la escuela. Las escuelas públicas no funcionan como clínicas de consentimiento informado para la transición médica, pero prohibir cosas que ni siquiera están ocurriendo con respecto a los niños trans es algo normal, y cumple la función de propaganda que también pretenden estos proyectos de ley.

    Esta ley proporciona poderosas herramientas a los padres helicóptero intolerante o abusivo, que desean extender su control totalitario sobre la vida de sus hijos fuera de los límites de su propio techo, a costa del contribuyente y sin poner el esfuerzo en la educación en casa. En lugar de ser una ley que previene el “grooming”, como absurdamente afirmó el secretario de prensa de DeSantis, en realidad permite el abuso infantil. Rebecca Watson señala en su post que la estigmatización que acompaña a estas leyes y la propia propaganda antigay son también un vector de abuso:

    A pesar de ello, el nuevo proyecto de ley de Florida realmente podría cambiar significativamente el número de niños que son “preparados” por adultos depredadores: podría aumentar ese número. Los depredadores buscan presas fáciles. Y cuando se trata de un pedófilo que espera abusar de un niño, la presa más fácil es un niño avergonzado: avergonzado de su propio cuerpo, avergonzado de su propia sexualidad, avergonzado de cualquier conversación sobre sexo. Los expertos coinciden en que una de las mejores formas de proteger a un niño de la captación es la comunicación abierta y honesta. Esta es una hoja informativa de la Universidad Estatal de Michigan que señala que una forma de proteger a tu hijo es enseñarle “pronto y a menudo” sobre el consentimiento y el respeto en las relaciones. Un niño educado es un niño más seguro, y un niño que no tiene miedo de hablar con un adulto de confianza, como un padre o un profesor, es un niño más seguro.

    Entonces, ¿qué sucede cuando educamos a los niños para que piensen en la homosexualidad o la transexualidad como temas “traviesos” que están prohibidos en la escuela? Lo mismo que ocurre cuando decidimos que no deben aprender sobre su propio cuerpo, o sobre el sexo: cuando un depredador abusa de ellos, asumen la vergüenza y creen al groomer cuando les dice que deben mantenerlo en secreto. ¿Qué ocurre cuando amordazamos a los profesores y les amenazamos con demandas si responden a las preguntas de los niños sobre relaciones, género y sexualidad? Entonces esos niños pierden la capacidad de vincularse con un adulto fuera de casa al que saben que pueden acudir en busca de ayuda si la necesitan, por ejemplo si sufren abusos en casa.

    La mascota del proyecto de ley, January Littlejohn, es una mujer que expresa su horror por el hecho de que su hijo pueda salir como no binario en la escuela pero no en casa. En sus discursos (como éste), repite el error de género de su propio hijo, sugiriendo que tomaron la decisión correcta en términos de dónde es más seguro salir del armario primero… En este cuadro faltan por completo las opiniones de este niño de 13 años.

    En la política estadounidense, las políticas que afectan a los niños se discuten en términos de qué grupo de adultos tiene más autonomía. Oímos hablar de la importancia de la patria potestad con respecto al derecho de los padres a criar a sus hijos como quieran sin que el gobierno interfiera. Oímos a los sindicatos de profesores decir que el hecho de que los profesores tengan mejores condiciones de trabajo va en interés de los niños, que son nuestro futuro. Aunque los padres y los profesores son seres humanos que merecen derechos, los intereses de los niños deben entenderse desde su propia perspectiva subjetiva.

    En la ciencia política y la economía, existe el concepto de “problema del agente principal”, la tendencia de quienes supuestamente actúan en interés de otra parte en realidad actúan más en su propio interés primero. A los defensores de la patria potestad les gusta crear una falsa dicotomía entre los padres que educan a sus propios hijos y el Estado que los educa. Se deja de lado la idea de que los propios menores deben tener voz y voto. Los adultos en la vida de un niño son, en el mejor de los casos, agentes imperfectos.

    Si bien es cierto que los padres suelen conocer a sus hijos mejor que otros adultos y eso es una buena razón para cierta autonomía parental en la medida en que es instrumental para los derechos de los niños, no debemos olvidar nunca que los padres son individuos propios y separados con sus propios intereses, que bien pueden chocar con los de sus hijos. No podemos aferrarnos a las creencias utópicas de los conservadores de que el maltrato y el abandono de los niños es un caso límite y, en cambio, reconocer la realidad de que las personas abusan regularmente del poder que tienen sobre otras personas.

    Pero incluso cuando un agente tiene buenas intenciones, también hay carencias de conocimiento. La experiencia de las personas trans es de injusticia epistémica. Utilizando algunos conceptos de la teoría de la elección pública, las personas cis (no trans) son racionalmente ignorantes sobre las cuestiones transgénero. Es decir, como no tienen planes concretos de transición, ni médica ni de otro tipo, y nunca han tenido que cuestionar su propio género, se enfrentan a pocas penalizaciones por la ignorancia sobre las cuestiones trans. De ahí la importancia de la autonomía de las personas trans. Mientras que las personas de todo tipo toman malas decisiones en su propio nombre, las buenas decisiones en nombre de otra persona son aún más difíciles de encontrar. Nadie sabe mejor que el individuo trans lo que le conviene, y un siglo de experimentos fallidos de control de acceso y terapias de conversión inefectivas y tortuosas así lo demuestran.

    Al igual que esta ley se hizo pensando en los niños transgénero, pero también podría afectar negativamente a los niños cisgénero, la liberación de los oprimidos significa la liberación de todos. Decirles a los niños homosexuales que está bien serlo significa también decirles a los niños heterosexuales que estamos construyendo una sociedad en la que pueden estar seguros de que su heterosexualidad es una faceta genuina de su verdadero ser y no una fachada a la que fueron obligados. Que estamos cambiando los insultos homófobos del patio de la escuela que se lanzan a los que no se ajustan a las rígidas normas de género.

    Afirmar las identidades trans significa afirmar todas las identidades. Una persona cisgénero puede estar segura de su género cuando sabe que tiene toda la libertad para ser de otra manera. Tener opciones que no son para ti no quita nada a la que sí lo es. Y cualquier nueva directriz contra el misgendering no sólo protegería a los niños trans, sino que protegería a los niños cis de los estereotipos de los profesores de educación física, que los maltratan de forma misógina por no correr lo suficientemente rápido.

    ​La autoridad final sobre la identidad de un niño LGBTQIA es el propio niño. Por mucho que la censura y las restricciones a la autonomía se anuncien como una forma de “proteger a los niños”, se trata claramente de proteger a los adultos de sus propias ansiedades. Por mucha diferencia que haya en la capacidad de juicio, un niño es su propia persona con sus propios derechos que no pueden ser anulados en aras de las preferencias estéticas de un adulto.

    Los padres, como yo, tenemos derechos como personas pero, con respecto a nuestros hijos, tenemos en cambio deberes. Abrir nuestra autonomía parental en favor de una autoridad aún más lejana también sería malo: leyes y disposiciones que impidan a los padres, a los niños y a los médicos buscar bloqueadores hormonales o una transición médica para los menores, por ejemplo. Pero no se trata de una cuestión de derechos parentales, sino de que la autonomía de los padres es instrumental para los derechos de los niños. Apartar a los niños de los padres con los que desean permanecer viola sus preferencias y, en este caso, también violaría su preferencia a favor de la transición médica. Uno de nuestros deberes es proteger los derechos de nuestros hijos y el primer paso para proteger los derechos es no violarlos uno mismo.

    El régimen que proponen las fuerzas anti-LGBTQIA ni siquiera es de respeto a la autonomía de los padres. Es uno de gobiernos conservadores y padres conservadores que tienen privilegios especiales para imponer su voluntad a los niños LGBTQIA. Los padres abusivos y los gobiernos pueden ser socios en el crimen, como cuando las fuerzas del orden devuelven a los niños fugados a sus hogares abusivos. A las personas que desean intimidar a los maricones para que desaparezcan de la vista pública o de la existencia no hay que seguirles la corriente, no hay que darles ni un centímetro. La sociedad tiene un camino que recorrer antes de que todos los seres sean igualmente libres y no se puede permitir que estos tradicionalistas nos roben eso, y mucho menos que creen un futuro más oscuro de opresión y autoritarismo en espiral.

  • Enabling Child Abuse in Florida

    “Children do not constitute anyone’s property: they are neither the property of the parents nor even the society.

    They belong only to their own future freedom.”

    -Bakunin

    As part of the recent wave of legislation targeting LGBTQIA people, especially trans minors, Florida passed a law advertised by its proponents as protection for parental rights, HB 1557. It has inspired similar provisions in other states such as HB 332 in Alabama. It’s worth looking into what it really does and what it’s probably meant to achieve.

    The bill has a number of provisions, many worded vaguely enough that it turns into something of a Rorschach test for political leanings. Much of the commentary on the bill in the media has been about the classroom discussion aspect of it, with detractors calling it the “don’t say gay” bill and proponents insisting that it is simply common-sense restrictions on age-inappropriate lessons. In reality, the bill is a lot worse than the “don’t say gay” nickname would have you believe, even though the wording doesn’t ban the word gay in all cases. The provision about classroom discussion is as follows:

    The bill prohibits classroom instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students.

    It’s unclear what constitutes “classroom instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity.” Is noting that a character in a book is a girl discussion of gender identity? Does this allow a double-standard where straight, but not gay, couples can appear in a story? We’re left guessing what the actual effect on classrooms will be.

    The enforcement mechanism is to allow parents the ability to sue schools for what they believe to be violations of this law. This will mean that it’s possible for schools to comply with any reasonable reading of the law, and still face time-consuming and costly lawsuits from parents who have different ideas of what is or isn’t age-appropriate. Knowing this, schools are likely to adopt policies designed to prevent this, by going further than the literal text of the law. This is likely the intention of the vagueness and certainly the effect. As Cato Institute explains (quoted by Rebecca Watson):

    Vague laws involve three basic dangers: First, they may harm the innocent by failing to warn of the offense. Second, they encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement because vague laws delegate enforcement and statutory interpretation to individual government officials. Third, because citizens will take extra precautions to avoid violating the law, vague laws inhibit our individual freedom.

    With such a vaguely worded law, the intentions of the proponents become important additional context. One of the sponsors of HB 1557, Dennis Baxley gave his reasoning as reducing the amount of people coming out:

    Proponents of the bill may say they merely want to protect parental rights, but the sponsor of the bill revealed his true intentions on Monday. State Senator Dennis Baxley said that he was deeply uncomfortable with what he sees as a “real trend change” in society. “My son’s a psychiatrist and I said, ‘Why is everybody now all about coming out when you’re in school?’” Baxley said on the Senate floor. “And there really is a dynamic of concern of how much of these are genuine types of experiences and how many of them are just kids trying on different kinds of things.” Indeed, Baxley believes that when kids come out, “overnight, they’re a celebrity.”

    Traditionalist gender ideology sounds fragile. If a kid will turn out gay by hearing about the existence of gay people, then it’s only a matter of time before that happens. The Dennis Baxleys of the world should calm down and let old ideas that are apparently hanging by a thread fail on their merits.

    The provision about classroom instruction, which (as we can see) isn’t about preventing grooming or age inappropriate sex ed, is just one line of this law. It gets worse. The law also has provisions to prevent children from entrusting information about themselves to faculty without it being disclosed to their parents:

    The bill prohibits a school district from maintaining procedures that require school district personnel to withhold from a parent, or encourage a student to withhold, information related to a student’s mental, emotional, or physical health or well-being. School district procedures may authorize school district personnel to withhold information only for a reasonable belief that disclosure would subject the student to abuse, abandonment, or neglect.

    This constitutes mandated outing. No one knows more than the LGBTQIA child themself who is safe to come out to and it’s important that they have all the tools they need to navigate this thorny landscape. For some, their parents are safer to come out to than school faculty. For others, it’s the other way around. This bill substitute’s the child’s specific knowledge with the judgment of government employees. That last line, an allowance for exemptions in the case of suspected abuse, is important and I’m glad it’s there. However, it’s unlikely to prevent all cases of abuse or neglect due to disclosure.

    If a child already prefers their parents not knowing, that is sufficient grounds to respect their wishes. This provision puts the kid at the mercy of faculty who might not fully understand the situation or even have the child’s interests at heart. Outing is always unethical behavior even if you don’t believe you’re putting the person in danger. This law mandates said unethical behavior on the part of school faculty.

    This is important because LGBTQIA children get abused by unsupportive parents in a number of ways. Some are kicked out of the house, or run away to avoid problems at home. According to a 2017 study by ChapinHall, LGBT youth have a 120% higher rate of homelessness. True Colors United, a charity that works with homeless LGBTQ youth, estimates that 40% of homeless youth are LGBTQ in their 2015 analysis.

    Others are subject to cruel and tortuous conversion “therapy,” which is not banned statewide in Florida, though bans at the local level exist, such as in Miami. Those not subject to conversion therapy are often at least subject to negative comments, deliberate misgendering, or otherwise being punished for the crime of being themselves. In short, this law enables abuse.

    Another provision of the law that warrants more attention is how it allows micromanagement of the use of all school services related to health. This won’t just affect LGBTQIA children. The law specifies any change in use of services must be notified and further, allows parents to opt out of services ahead of time.

    At the beginning of each school year, a school district must notify parents of all healthcare services offered at their student’s school and provide parents the opportunity to individually consent to, or decline, each service.

    This law was made with transgender children in mind, so that parents can block aspects of social transition related to school administration, and that itself verges on abusive conversion therapy. However, that also means that any child going to the nurse or school counselor about something that might not be safe to disclose to their parents can no longer do so without their parents finding out, unless they can plead to them that said disclosure will lead to abuse. Did they tell a counselor they were getting abused at home? The kid is now at the mercy of that counselor that their parents don’t find out. Did a nurse diagnose a minor with pregnancy or an STD? The enforcement mechanism spelled out in this bill can make some faculty fear the wrath of parents who find out something was withheld from them.

    The ability to opt-out of services could mean that parents can override their child’s preferences by withholding potentially necessary medicine from them. Say the parent is an anti-vaxxer but their child isn’t. The wording of this law suggests that parents will be able to opt out of vaccination should that be provided at the school. Public schools don’t function as informed consent clinics for medical transition, but banning things that aren’t even happening with respect to trans children is par for the course, and serves the propaganda function also intended by these bills.

    This law provides powerful tools to bigoted or abusive helicopter parents, who wish to extend their totalitarian control over their children’s lives outside the bounds of their own roof, at taxpayer’s expense and without putting the effort into homeschooling. Rather than being a law that prevents “grooming” as DeSantis’ press secretary absurdly claimed, it actually enables child abuse. Rebecca Watson notes in her post that the stigmatization that goes with these laws and the anti-gay propaganda itself is also a vector of abuse:

    Despite this, Florida’s new bill really could significantly change the number of children who are “groomed” by predatory adults: it could increase that number. Here’s how: predators look for easy prey. And when it comes to a pedophile hoping to abuse a child, the easiest prey is a child who is ashamed – ashamed of their own body, ashamed of their own sexuality, ashamed of any discussion of sex. Experts agree that one of the best ways to protect a child from being groomed is open and honest communication. Here’s a fact sheet from Michigan State University that points out one way to protect your child is to teach them “early and often” about consent and respect in relationships. An educated child is a safer child, and a child who isn’t afraid to speak up to a trusted adult, like a parent or a teacher, is a safer child.

    So what happens when we raise kids to think of homosexuality or transgenderism as “naughty” topics that are off-limits in school? The same thing that happens when we decide that they shouldn’t learn about their own bodies, or about sex: when a predator abuses them, they take on the shame and believe the groomer when they tell them they need to keep it a secret. What happens when we muzzle teachers and threaten them with lawsuits if they answer kids’ questions about relationships, gender, and sexuality? Then those kids lose the ability to bond with an adult outside the home who they know they can go to for help if they need it, for instance if they’re being abused at home.

    The mascot of the bill, January Littlejohn, is a woman expressing horror that her child was able to be out as non-binary at school but not home. In her speeches (such as this one), she repetitively misgenders her own kid, suggesting that they made the right call in terms of where it’s safer to come out first… missing entirely from this picture are the opinions of this 13 year old child.

    In American politics, policies that affect children are discussed in terms of which group of adults are given more autonomy. We hear about the importance of parental rights with regard to the parent’s right to raise their children how they wish without government interference. We hear from teacher’s unions about how teachers having better work conditions is in the interest of children, who are our future. While parents and teachers are humans who do deserve rights, the interests of children should be understood from their own subjective perspective.

    In political science and economics, there is a concept of “principal-agent problem,” the tendency of those supposedly acting in the interest of another party in reality acting more in their own interests first. Proponents of parental rights like to create a false dichotomy between parents raising their own children and the state raising their children instead. Left out is any idea that minors themselves should have a say. The adults in a child’s life are, at best, imperfect agents.

    While it is true that parents usually know their kids better than other adults and that’s a good reason for some parental autonomy insofar as it is instrumental in the children’s rights, we must never forget that parents are their own, separate individuals with their own interests, which may well clash with that of that of their children. We can’t cling to the utopian beliefs of conservatives that child abuse and neglect is an edge case and instead recognize the reality that people regularly abuse whatever power they have over other persons.

    But even when an agent means well, there are also shortages in terms of knowledge. The experience for trans people is one of epistemic injustice. To use some concepts from public choice theory, cis (non-trans) people are rationally ignorant about transgender issues. That is, as they have no particular plans about transitioning, medically or otherwise, and have never had to question their own gender, they face few penalties for ignorance about trans issues. This is why the importance of autonomy for trans individuals is most important. While people of all sorts make poor decisions on their own behalf, good decisions on someone else’s behalf are yet harder to come by. Nobody knows better than the trans individual what is in their own interests and a century of failed experiments in gatekeeping and ineffective, tortuous conversion therapy bears this out.

    Just like this law was made with transgender children in mind but could negatively impact cisgender children as well, liberation of the oppressed means liberation for all. Telling gay children that it’s okay to be gay means also telling straight children that we’re building a society in which you can be confident that your heterosexuality is a genuine facet of your true self and not a facade you were coerced into. That we are defanging the schoolyard homophobic slurs flung at those who don’t conform to rigid gender norms.

    Affirming trans identities means affirming all identities. A cisgender individual can be confident in their gender once they can know that they had every freedom to be otherwise. Having options that aren’t for you takes nothing away from the one that is. And any new guidelines against misgendering would not only protect trans children, it would protect cis boys from stereotypical PE teachers, misgendering them in a misogynistic way for not running fast enough.

    The final authority on an LGBTQIA child’s identity is the child themself. However much censorship and restrictions in autonomy may advertise themselves as about “protecting the children,” they are clearly about protecting adults from their own anxieties. However much differential there may be in judgment capacity, a child is their own person with their own rights that cannot be overridden for the sake of an adult’s aesthetic preferences.

    Parents, such as myself, have rights as persons but, with respect to our children, we have duties instead. Abridging our parental autonomy for a yet more distant authority would also be bad – laws and provisions preventing parents, children, and physicians from pursuing hormone blockers or medical transition for minors for instance. But this isn’t a matter of parental rights, it’s a matter of parental autonomy being instrumental to children’s rights. Taking children from parents they wish to remain with violates their preferences and in this case, it would also violate their preference in favor of medical transition. One of our duties is to protect the rights of our children and the first step in protecting rights is to not violate them yourself.

    The regime being put forward by anti-LGBTQIA forces is not even one of respecting parental autonomy. It’s just one of conservative governments and conservative parents having special privileges to force their will upon LGBTQIA children. Abusive parents and governments can be partners in crime, such as when law enforcement brings runaway children back to their abusive homes. People who wish to bully queers out of public view or out of existence should not be humored, they shouldn’t even be given an inch. Society has a ways to go before all beings are equally free and these traditionalists cannot be allowed to rob that of us, much less create a darker future of oppression and spiraling authoritarianism.

  • The Attacks on Trans Children

    Politicians in several states, notably including Arkansas, North Carolina, and Texas, have introduced new laws to attack trans children. In Arkansas, they’ve already passed several of these laws.

    It’s hard to keep up with each new bill.

    As of mid-April 2021, much of the attention focuses on sports and the NCAA’s responses, but some of these bills would criminalize trans-related health care for children and adults up to 21 years old, separate trans children from supportive parents, if they assist with certain trans-related health care, and require teachers and therapists to out trans and/or gender-nonconforming children to potentially unsupportive parents. And now in Florida, add genital inspections to girls’ sports.

    It’s probably safest to think that, if the public gives these power-mongers an inch, they will take a mile.

    A policy not to prescribe hormones before 16 years is replaced with a law banning hormones or puberty blockers before 21 years.

    A set of policies to try to ensure transitioners have therapy before starting hormones is replaced with a ban on affirming and other supportive therapy and a hostile environment everywhere.

    It’s an open question how to best support trans and gender-questioning children with varying needs. And how to destroy patriarchy. But for liberty, equality, and personal and bodily autonomy, we must oppose these attacks.

  • The Weekly Abolitionist: Stop Caging Kids

    This week marks the 2014 National Week of Action Against Incarcerating Youth. Across the country, actions will be held to protest everything from the criminalization of queer and disabled youth to the isolation of youth in solitary confinement. Ultimately, what activists are protesting is systematic child abuse by the state.

    Kids are being locked in cages by the government all across the country. The consequences are devastating. According to a report from the Justice Policy Institute:

    A recent literature review of youth corrections shows that detention has a profoundly negative impact on young people’s mental and physical well-being, their education, and their employment. One psychologist found that for one-third of incarcerated youth diagnosed with depression, the onset of the depression occurred after they began their incarceration, and another suggests that poor mental health, and the conditions of confinement together conspire to make it more likely that incarcerated teens will engage in suicide and self-harm. Economists have shown that the process of incarcerating youth will reduce their future earnings and their ability to remain in the workforce, and could change formerly detained youth into less stable employees. Educational researchers have found that upwards of 40 percent of incarcerated youth have a learning disability, and they will face significant challenges returning to school after they leave detention. Most importantly, for a variety of reasons to be explored, there is credible and significant research that suggests that the experience of detention may make it more likely that youth will continue to engage in delinquent behavior, and that the detention experience may increase the odds that youth will recidivate, further compromising public safety.

    So the state is engaging in violence that scars young people physically and mentally, and hurts their economic prospects; and this practice may even increase rather than decrease the chance of future crime. Moreover, according to the same report, most of these youth are not even a threat to others, as “about 70 percent are detained for nonviolent offenses.”

    Once incarcerated, youth are subjected to severe abuses. For example, many youth are isolated in solitary confinement, which is widely recognized as a form of psychological torture. According to the American Civil Liberties Union:

    Solitary confinement can cause extreme psychological, physical, and developmental harm. For children, who are still developing and more vulnerable to irreparable harm, the risks are magnified – particularly for kids with disabilities or histories of trauma and abuse. While confined, children are regularly deprived of the services, programming, and other tools that they need for healthy growth, education, and development.

    The impacts of solitary on adults are harmful enough. “It’s an awful thing, solitary,” wrote John McCain, “It crushes your spirit and weakens your resistance more effectively than any other form of mistreatment.” Subjecting youth to this kind of torture is monstrous.

    Incarcerated youth are also all too often raped and sexually assaulted by guards. According to David Kaiser and Lovisa Stannow, “4.5 percent of juveniles in prison and 4.7 percent of those in jail reported such [sexual] victimization—rates that ought to be considered disastrously high.” Their risk was higher in youth detention centers, “minors held in juvenile detention suffered sexual abuse at twice the rate of their peers in adult facilities.” Most of this abuse is committed by guards employed and paid with tax dollars:

    Some 2.5 percent of all boys and girls in juvenile detention reported having been the victims of inmate-on-inmate abuse. This is not dramatically higher than the corresponding combined male and female rates reported by adults or juveniles in either prison or jail. The reason why the overall rate of sexual abuse (9.5 percent) was so much higher in juvenile detention than in other facilities is the frequency of sexual misconduct by staff. About 7.7 percent of those in juvenile detention reported sexual contact with staff during the preceding year. Over 90 percent of these cases involved female staff and teenage boys in custody.

    Government employees are committing child sexual abuse against caged victims. These guards are often repeat offenders. “In juvenile facilities, victims of sexual misconduct by staff members were more likely to report eleven or more instances of abuse than a single, isolated occurrence.” All of this data comes from research conducted by the government’s own Bureau of Justice Statistics.

    The impacts of the state’s systematic caging and abuse of children are not equally distributed across the population. The Center for Children’s Law and Policy documents many studies showing the racially disparate impacts of youth incarceration and juvenile justice policies. LGBTQ youth also face disproportionate impacts from the juvenile justice system. According to an article in The Nation:

    The road to incarceration begins in pretrial detention, before the youth even meets a judge. Laws and professional standards state that it’s appropriate to detain a child before trial only if she might run away or harm someone. Yet for queer youth, these standards are frequently ignored. According to UC Santa Cruz researcher Dr. Angela Irvine, LGBT youth are two times more likely than straight youth to land in a prison cell before adjudication for nonviolent offenses like truancy, running away and prostitution. According to Ilona Picou, executive director of Juvenile Regional Services, Inc., in Louisiana, 50 percent of the gay youth picked up for nonviolent offenses in Louisiana in 2009 were sent to jail to await trial, while less than 10 percent of straight kids were. “Once a child is detained, the judge assumes there’s a reason you can’t go home,” says Dr. Marty Beyer, a juvenile justice specialist. “A kid coming into court wearing handcuffs and shackles versus a kid coming in with his parents—it makes a very different impression.”

    Queer and transgender youth are treated differently by the justice system before they are even tried and convicted. Once incarcerated, they face brutal violence. From beatings to victim blaming to bigoted slurs from guards, queer and transgender youth are regularly abused in juvenile corrections facilities.

    Some of America’s youth incarceration problem begins in the schools. “Zero-tolerance” policies in public schools criminalize violating school rules, producing what is often called the school to prison pipeline. The racially disparate impacts of this school to prison pipeline are well documented, and they often criminalize minor infractions.

    Outside of school, youth are often directly targeted by police thanks to ageist laws like curfews. Laws often restrict freedom of movement and bodily autonomy for youth, and justify this coercion through condescending and paternalistic platitudes. In a particularly appalling recent case of paternalism sending youth to prison, a transgender girl was sent to an adult prison without charges or trial, because the state had power over her as her “guardian.” The desire to protect youth provides ideological cover for the state to treat them even more abusively than it treats adults.

    The American state is uniquely punitive in some respects. According to Amnesty International, “The United States is believed to stand alone in sentencing children to life without parole.” Amnesty identifies “at least 2,500 people in the US serving life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for crimes committed when they were under 18 years old.” Before turning 18, these youth were permanently separated from society, permanently sent to violent hellholes.

    The essence of imprisonment as we know it is throwing away a human being, treating them as disposable. Prisoners are subjected to violence, abuse, and torture. They are held in austere and inhumane conditions. And they are kept out of the general public’s sight. They are punished rather than being made to make amends or provide restitution to victims. It’s bad enough to treat any human being this way. To treat children this way is unconscionable. Stop caging kids.