There’s more than one way to skin a cat, or so the saying goes. And while there is some debate about the origin (1839, give or take), pithy turns of phrase on the matter of multiple paths to a chosen end have been expressed throughout history. And if at first you don’t succeed.
Murderous mob boss Al Capone went down for tax evasion, while perjury is another tool that gets a lot of use when you want to get someone. John Brennan and James Comey, for example, who are now under investigation over the Russiagate scandal, probably lied under oath. If nothing else sticks, that’ll get them time in the graybar hotel. Lying to any court (except NH’s General Court) is a serious crime. When examples need to be made, perjury might suffice, especially in DC, where lying is like breathing.
Along a similar vein, we have the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which is responsible for protecting consumers from deceptive practices. It recently hosted a conference on the dangers of transgender surgery on minors and whether doctors and hospitals have properly informed patients and parents of the manifold risks. This assumes the FTC can prove the purveyors knew things they did not disclose.
Recent research has yielded both obvious and less obvious conclusions about gender transition “therapies.” There is evidence that gender surgery does not reduce the risk of suicide, and some studies suggest that it increases that risk. The incidence of medical complications, the complete loss of sexual sensation, inability to procreate (do you consent to be neutered), prevalence of prolonged and sometimes chronic pain, infections, maintenance medications and the risks these present, as well as death are all matters that may not get properly or thoroughly communicated prior to “treatment.”
Any one of those could get you in trouble, and it seems unlikely any of these facts would be hidden in disclosure documents no one ever seems to read before signing. Those would be a de facto admission of risk. Leaving them out, however, is considered criminal misconduct, and one way or another, the FTC seems to think it has an opportunity to expose that.
The Trump Administration has made it clear this practice is abhorrent. Adults can manipulate children, so kids should be ineligible for any gender treatments until the age of majority. Most of America agrees, and using the FTC to go after them seems like “more than one way” to skin that cat. It solves several problems simultaneously.
First, it pressures clinicians and surgical facilities to disclose fully. That level of detail is likely to dissuade a lot of people form proceeding. Failure to disclose could get them into serious trouble with the FTC.
Second, defenders of child mutilation will have to try to defend the lack of transparency, especially for invasive procedures. You can’t just shout safe and effective and then put your fingers in your ears and go LA LA LA LA LA LA. The few people left who don’t think this practice is gruesome will abandon their disinterest and side with more disclosure.
And finally, knowing the facts and risks, hospitals that have been milking this cash cow may find it’s no longer financially lucrative, but quite the contrary. If there’s no place to get neutered, fewer, if any, such procedures will take place.
That is, ultimately the goal—a ban by other means in states that have not or will not ban them locally.
