OCs, thoughts and language msitakes

mutuals i am doing this to you

i been making something

welp

4 and a half days apparently i didnt need more for the wooden parts (keybox is done too)

Colors are not done yet but i'm making progress very fast.

The wheel should stay clear (easier to have it true without paint)

There was a vote today (28th of May, 2024) at the french senate concerning the law around medical transition for trans youth.

Context here

To be clear : THIS LAW IS NOT GOING TO BE ENACTED YET. IT HAS TO PASS THROUGH THE ASSEMBLÉE NATIONALE, WHICH HAS THE POWER TO MODIFY IT AND HAS THE FINAL WORD OVER WHETHER IS PASSES THROUGH OR NOT

Now, having said that, the debate at the Senate was very interesting. It was the first overview of the text by the political class, and was a good moment to observe the position of the varying groups involved, as well as what is important to each.

It's important to note that the Senate is heavily right-leaning, the most right-wing political assembly in the country, in fact. That's mostly because they're representative of the groups in charge of the communes, regardless of population, and our rural areas are heavily right-leaning, which makes for a lot of communes for a relatively low population.

With this context established : The text passed with a relatively wide majority (180 in favour, 136 against), which if translated to the Assemblée Nationale, would be way more disputed. (Center and left-wing being larger there). In this case, right-wing was in favour, left-wing against, and the center was very divided.

What does this text do

It contains 4 articles :

1 : The first bans HRT for minors, as well as any form of gender affirming surgery. It also calls for the creation of regional, specialized clinics, which do not exist here yet. The catch ? The list of said clinics has to be determined by the minister of Health. (To my surprise, nobody even discussed this part, which is, in my opinion, horrendous, as it could open the way to a future minister removing these clinics at any time.) It also includes a mandatory delay of 2 years between the first appointment and the prescription of puberty blockers, and its conditions include the nebulous "evaluation of the minor's capacity for discernment"

2 : It punishes any doctor ignoring these rules to 2 years of imprisonment and a 30 000€ fine

3 : The third article calls (in a very unclear manner) to the elaboration of a national strategy in child psychiatry, to try and give children the best means for their mental health. It has been heavily debated, as transitioning in France is not considered a psychiatric affection since 2010 (for context, this is before the DSM-5), although this has had very little effect in practice.

4 : This law has to be examined again in the 5 years after its (eventual) adoption.

The discussion

This is a very heavy blow to trans youth. The ban has direct measurable effects, and the creation of specialized clinics cannot be a redeeming quality as long as their existence directly depends on the Health Minister's will. It also opens the way for more bans, including for trans adults. (There are talks about the 25 y/o mark, just as in the Cass Review) Only 294 trans minors (according to the numbers cited today) in France are on puberty blockers, but the amount of minors on HRT has not been cited and is probably way higher. The text does include a line saying that people currently on it would be allowed to continue, but it would effectively stop anyone under 18 from benefitting from it in the future.

The question of surgery has been discussed, with cited cases of mastectomies on people younger than 18 (but never younger than 17), with at least one for which the doctors judged it to be taking priority due to the risk of self-harm is nothing was done. To that, the draftsman, who directed the revision of the text before it was brought the the Senate, responded (translated) "17 or 18, in my opinion there's no big difference" (clearly ignoring an example where doctors clearly thought it could have been a life or death difference)

The common factor among the defenders of this law was "protect the children" (of course), with arguments directly taken from the Cass Review, and debunked stats about detransition rates or the idea that "most kids grow out of their gender diversity". They also showed a huge distrust of trans youth in general, highlighting several times how they think children cannot know themselves in such a significant way better than parents would. They intensely rejected the idea of self-determination in general. Even the ones who said they accepted trans people defended a view that reeks of transmedicalism (i.e. "if you don't need medical transition, and most of you don't, you're not trans and you're falling to a trend")

The absence of trans youth themselves in the 300 page report behind the law project pushed some (left-wing) people to read or mention testimonies from trans people themselves, in an effort to actually bring us to a conversation that's about us but entirely decided by cisgender people. This was opposed with the argument that testimonies from detransitioners are just as moving, implying that this is just not an argument (totally ignoring the ratio of trans people to detransitioners, which makes one of them way more relevant when it comes to deciding for everyone)

A very important part of the discussion was whether or not the government should even try to pass laws on the subject. Most of the people against the project argued that these decisions should come from the HAS (High Authority of Health)'s recommendations, and not from politicians. The answer to that was to argue that this was "prudence until the HAS decides on the topic" (which implies that if they have recommendations, these would probably be in a restrictive direction). I want to highlight that someone on the left did bring up the fact that most interrogated experts do no feel like there is a need to change the law for this particular topic. (However, there is also a push to make legal sex change easier, which also has to be discussed by the Senate, but let's face it, will probably be rejected).

The pushback in several countries (Denmark, Finland and Norway were mentioned without any form of precision ; The Cass Review in England was precisely cited several times though) has been used as an argument to push this decision, arguing that "some of the most progressive countries are rolling back on this topic" and we should listen to what their experiences tell us. Interestingly, I heard no mention of the USA either way, except a weird mention of the US Declaration of Independence, which I can't make sense of in this context.

What next ?

Now we wait for the Assemblée Nationale to decide. This can be an extremely complex process, which can call for revisions, examinating whether or not it conforms to the constitution, and various ways to contest a decision.

The schedule for that is not set as I write this, as the Senate's decision was just made.

There are still strong chances for this to go either way, so now is the time to actually talk about it publicly. For that, I believe the timing might be decisive, as Pride Month is just around the corner and people will talk about this issue in this context. Whether that will turn opinions in favour or against that law, I cannot predict, but public opinion definitely can affect the final decision.

I will continue updating on this post as this develops.

[Note : it has been more than six months but the political turmoil in the country has basically sidelined this particular issue with no timeline as to when it's going to pop back up. I am regularly checking whether it comes back up but for now nothing]

France is currently in a decent place when it comes to the right to transition. It's relatively easy to see a specialist, though it highly depends on where you live, and the process can be relatively quick ; plus a lot of it is free, or at least partially covered by social security. It could be better, for sure, but this is actively making it worse, following the trend coming mostly from the UK.

Please reblog this.

There was a vote today (28th of May, 2024) at the french senate concerning the law around medical transition for trans youth.

Context here

To be clear : THIS LAW IS NOT GOING TO BE ENACTED YET. IT HAS TO PASS THROUGH THE ASSEMBLÉE NATIONALE, WHICH HAS THE POWER TO MODIFY IT AND HAS THE FINAL WORD OVER WHETHER IS PASSES THROUGH OR NOT

Now, having said that, the debate at the Senate was very interesting. It was the first overview of the text by the political class, and was a good moment to observe the position of the varying groups involved, as well as what is important to each.

It's important to note that the Senate is heavily right-leaning, the most right-wing political assembly in the country, in fact. That's mostly because they're representative of the groups in charge of the communes, regardless of population, and our rural areas are heavily right-leaning, which makes for a lot of communes for a relatively low population.

With this context established : The text passed with a relatively wide majority (180 in favour, 136 against), which if translated to the Assemblée Nationale, would be way more disputed. (Center and left-wing being larger there). In this case, right-wing was in favour, left-wing against, and the center was very divided.

What does this text do

It contains 4 articles :

1 : The first bans HRT for minors, as well as any form of gender affirming surgery. It also calls for the creation of regional, specialized clinics, which do not exist here yet. The catch ? The list of said clinics has to be determined by the minister of Health. (To my surprise, nobody even discussed this part, which is, in my opinion, horrendous, as it could open the way to a future minister removing these clinics at any time.) It also includes a mandatory delay of 2 years between the first appointment and the prescription of puberty blockers, and its conditions include the nebulous "evaluation of the minor's capacity for discernment"

2 : It punishes any doctor ignoring these rules to 2 years of imprisonment and a 30 000€ fine

3 : The third article calls (in a very unclear manner) to the elaboration of a national strategy in child psychiatry, to try and give children the best means for their mental health. It has been heavily debated, as transitioning in France is not considered a psychiatric affection since 2010 (for context, this is before the DSM-5), although this has had very little effect in practice.

4 : This law has to be examined again in the 5 years after its (eventual) adoption.

The discussion

This is a very heavy blow to trans youth. The ban has direct measurable effects, and the creation of specialized clinics cannot be a redeeming quality as long as their existence directly depends on the Health Minister's will. It also opens the way for more bans, including for trans adults. (There are talks about the 25 y/o mark, just as in the Cass Review) Only 294 trans minors (according to the numbers cited today) in France are on puberty blockers, but the amount of minors on HRT has not been cited and is probably way higher. The text does include a line saying that people currently on it would be allowed to continue, but it would effectively stop anyone under 18 from benefitting from it in the future.

The question of surgery has been discussed, with cited cases of mastectomies on people younger than 18 (but never younger than 17), with at least one for which the doctors judged it to be taking priority due to the risk of self-harm is nothing was done. To that, the draftsman, who directed the revision of the text before it was brought the the Senate, responded (translated) "17 or 18, in my opinion there's no big difference" (clearly ignoring an example where doctors clearly thought it could have been a life or death difference)

The common factor among the defenders of this law was "protect the children" (of course), with arguments directly taken from the Cass Review, and debunked stats about detransition rates or the idea that "most kids grow out of their gender diversity". They also showed a huge distrust of trans youth in general, highlighting several times how they think children cannot know themselves in such a significant way better than parents would. They intensely rejected the idea of self-determination in general. Even the ones who said they accepted trans people defended a view that reeks of transmedicalism (i.e. "if you don't need medical transition, and most of you don't, you're not trans and you're falling to a trend")

The absence of trans youth themselves in the 300 page report behind the law project pushed some (left-wing) people to read or mention testimonies from trans people themselves, in an effort to actually bring us to a conversation that's about us but entirely decided by cisgender people. This was opposed with the argument that testimonies from detransitioners are just as moving, implying that this is just not an argument (totally ignoring the ratio of trans people to detransitioners, which makes one of them way more relevant when it comes to deciding for everyone)

A very important part of the discussion was whether or not the government should even try to pass laws on the subject. Most of the people against the project argued that these decisions should come from the HAS (High Authority of Health)'s recommendations, and not from politicians. The answer to that was to argue that this was "prudence until the HAS decides on the topic" (which implies that if they have recommendations, these would probably be in a restrictive direction). I want to highlight that someone on the left did bring up the fact that most interrogated experts do no feel like there is a need to change the law for this particular topic. (However, there is also a push to make legal sex change easier, which also has to be discussed by the Senate, but let's face it, will probably be rejected).

The pushback in several countries (Denmark, Finland and Norway were mentioned without any form of precision ; The Cass Review in England was precisely cited several times though) has been used as an argument to push this decision, arguing that "some of the most progressive countries are rolling back on this topic" and we should listen to what their experiences tell us. Interestingly, I heard no mention of the USA either way, except a weird mention of the US Declaration of Independence, which I can't make sense of in this context.

What next ?

Now we wait for the Assemblée Nationale to decide. This can be an extremely complex process, which can call for revisions, examinating whether or not it conforms to the constitution, and various ways to contest a decision.

The schedule for that is not set as I write this, as the Senate's decision was just made.

There are still strong chances for this to go either way, so now is the time to actually talk about it publicly. For that, I believe the timing might be decisive, as Pride Month is just around the corner and people will talk about this issue in this context. Whether that will turn opinions in favour or against that law, I cannot predict, but public opinion definitely can affect the final decision.

I will continue updating on this post as this develops.

[Note : it has been more than six months but the political turmoil in the country has basically sidelined this particular issue with no timeline as to when it's going to pop back up. I am regularly checking whether it comes back up but for now nothing]

France is currently in a decent place when it comes to the right to transition. It's relatively easy to see a specialist, though it highly depends on where you live, and the process can be relatively quick ; plus a lot of it is free, or at least partially covered by social security. It could be better, for sure, but this is actively making it worse, following the trend coming mostly from the UK.

Please reblog this.