Fair enough. Although I would argue lumping in "social transition" with more invasive forms of medicine under 'et al' is burying the lede in a way that isn't exactly in the best faith.
Perhaps you would concede that advising against "social transition" for minors is not exactly in the same league as having concerns about medical interventions. Surely you're not suggesting social transition accommodations carry similar risks as medical transition.
I think the state of Florida is going to have trouble finding a medical consensus to explain why this non-invasive, mild social intervention is so dangerous to adolescent patients to totally remove it from a doctor's discretion. One might even call this a fringe position.
Now that I have more time.....
I'm going to start by calling attention to what you did there. I posted an article about Levine's comments, which said there was "no argument" about gender-affirming care, and I was critical of her for saying that. Either she is unaware of the argument, or she's lying. Either one is bad. As a professional in her position, she really ought to know better.
You're trying to turn this into somehow a question about whether banning social transition is extreme or not. It's a legitimate question, but not part of what the discussion had been about.
Be that as it may, is it extreme?
I can't think of a less interesting question. We would have to get into another definition argument. I care aboutn whether it's a good idea, or a bad idea. One related question is whether lots of people think it's a good idea, or lots of people think it's a bad idea, which could bear on the question of its "extreme" status, or not, depending on the definition of extreme, which I would find to be a boring discussion.
I think you can find plenty of people, including a fair number of medical professionals, who either support the guidelines or are lukewarm in their opposition to the guidelines. Does that have any bearing on it's "extremeness"? (Rhetorical question.)
But...getting back to the guidelines themselves. My first though was that it seemed like a bad idea to actually forbid social transitioning, but then I actually read the guidelines and realized that that characterization is misleading. What the guidelines forbid* is social transition as a medical treatment.
In other words, if someone wants to wear a dress, call themselves Julie and spend 150 dollars for a haircut, have at it. However, if a doctor recommends that as part of a treatment plan, the guidelines forbid it.
And, I'm undecided, but leaning toward saying that's ok.
You described it as "this non-invasive, mild social intervention". Well, if that's what it is, why is it part of a treatment plan anyway? It sounds more like "advice" than treatment. Ok, that's what psychologists, as opposed to psychiatrists, often do, so would it count as treatment if a patient says, "I think I'm really a boy" and the psychologist says, "Well, tell people to call you "Fred" and see how you like it." If it goes beyond that, then I suppose there are questions to be asked. To put it differently, I'm not sure exactly what is being forbidden by the guidelines.
I don't think the guidelines specify what clothes to wear, who to date, what pronouns to use, or, really, anything. They just say that whatever material you use for your underwear, it isn't medicine.
*I don't know actually whether the guidelines forbid anything. Are they rules, or suggestions? What happens to people who do things that the guidelines say they ought not do? I don't know. I'll just say "forbid", but I don't know if it's true in the legal sense.
