To his credit, Dan has been consistent in advocating for parents and physicians to play a major role in deciding whether or not it is appropriate to "transition" young children. I've always felt like Dan's position left room to support parents and physicians who made the decision not to "transition" young children. While I don't agree that young children should ever be subjected to irreversible medical procedures, at least Dan seemed to leave room for actual choices made by parents and physicians.
Now that CA appears to be passing a law that will charge parents with child abuse of they don't make what the state considered to be the "right" choice, and the Biden administration asserting again that children are really not the "property" of their parents, and that they "belong to" the state (all of us). I guess we'll see if Dan continues to advocate for the parents and physicians to actually have an actual choice based on what they believe is best for a young child, or if he'll fall in line with those who want to eliminate choice on the part of the parents and physicians.
20 comments:
I've no doubt Dan will default to his "experts", who are no more than medical advocates for perversion and disorder. To those like Dan, all claims to care about the private decisions of parents and their medical providers are simply bullshit diversions. The only true concern for perverts like Dan is the promotion, enabling and celebration of perversions. Thus, for parents and their doctors who insist the delusion of the child is not as important as their long term health, when that insistence results in the child being denied the indulgence of that delusion regarding their sex, Dan will not at all advocate for such. All that matters to Dan is to promote, celebrate and enable perversion and disorder. That's what "embracing grace" looks like.
the "right" choice, and the Biden administration asserting again that children are really not the "property" of their parents, and that they "belong to" the state (all of us).
Well, children are quite literally NOT the property of their parents, because of course they're not. You don't believe that, do you? Surely, on that point, you, I and Joe Biden all agree. Children are humans, not ANYONE's property!
And, again, children are part of the state, of all of us. They don't "belong to us" like property, but we are our brothers', our sisters', our children's keeper, biblically speaking. We have an obligation to watch out for one another and we have a special obligation to watch out for the least of these, including children. I suppose you, I and Biden can all agree on that, too.
So then, when it comes down to it, if an abusive dad says, "They're MY kids, I own them and I'll raise them how I see fit and if I think they need a beatin', then I'll give them a beatin! And if I need to molest them, well, that's family business!!" well, that abusive dad is wrong and we, the society, have a deep obligation to step in.
You'd agree, right?
If so, then we can agree on all that. Then it comes down to the question of WHEN does society have an obligation to intervene on behalf of children? That can be a tricky question. Beating children, that's surely wrong and should be stopped. Such a parent should be arrested.
But what about spanking? Does that reach the line of "beating" and abuse? It's a trickier call. What kind of spanking? Are we talking about a light bump on the butt or using a belt to wallop a child? The latter is clearly abuse and the former... well, I don't know that we have agreement on that.
Do we agree on that much?
What about the religious parents who want to arrange a marriage for their 14 year old daughter to a 32 year old man? Is that abuse and we need to intervene? I'd say so. You?
What about the religious parents who refuse medical treatment for their child because that's what their religion "tells" them? Right now, that's considered a crime and the state should intervene. Do you agree?
https://www.lawinfo.com/resources/insurance/health-insurance/when-can-a-parent-deny-medical-treatment-to-a.html#:~:text=their%20parental%20rights.-,Criminal%20Charges,fines%2C%20and%20mandated%20parenting%20classes.
Well, what if medical experts say, "This child needs to have transgender support..." and the parents refuse medical treatment. Abuse? What if the child commits suicide because the parents refused medical advice? A crime? Will you feel bad for that child and angry at the parents? Or will you support the parents?
"Well, children are quite literally NOT the property of their parents, because of course they're not. You don't believe that, do you? Surely, on that point, you, I and Joe Biden all agree. Children are humans, not ANYONE's property!"
I know that the word property is not the best word to describe the parent child relationship. Although the pro abortion folx DO make a case that the unborn child IS the property of only the mother and can be destroyed at the mother's whim. So, instead of bitching about a semantic issue, how about making a better suggestion to describe the parent child relationship? Throughout history law, culture, and custom have understood that the parent/child relationship is special and unique and to be highly valued. This doesn't discount the exceptions where parents suck at being parents, it's about the majority of parents. Although, bad parents ARE still given a higher standing under the law when it comes to their children.
"And, again, children are part of the state, of all of us. They don't "belong to us" like property, but we are our brothers', our sisters', our children's keeper, biblically speaking. We have an obligation to watch out for one another and we have a special obligation to watch out for the least of these, including children. I suppose you, I and Biden can all agree on that, too."
Yes, children are part of "We the people.", but that doesn't mean that the government can override the parent/child relationship because Biden thinks that my kids are "our kids". It certainly doesn't mean that "our kids" takes precedence over "my kids".
"So then, when it comes down to it, if an abusive dad says, "They're MY kids, I own them and I'll raise them how I see fit and if I think they need a beatin', then I'll give them a beatin! And if I need to molest them, well, that's family business!!" well, that abusive dad is wrong and we, the society, have a deep obligation to step in. You'd agree, right?"
In a very broad and general sense I agree that there are times when it is appropriate for the state to step in when parents are failing in their responsibility as parents. But, those instances should be the last option, not the first.
"If so, then we can agree on all that. Then it comes down to the question of WHEN does society have an obligation to intervene on behalf of children?"
Sure.
"But what about spanking? Does that reach the line of "beating" and abuse? It's a trickier call. What kind of spanking? Are we talking about a light bump on the butt or using a belt to wallop a child? The latter is clearly abuse and the former... well, I don't know that we have agreement on that. Do we agree on that much?"
What about it? Not necessarily. I don't know. I still don't know. You haven't actually made a statement that could be agreed with, just asked a bunch of questions.
"What about the religious parents who want to arrange a marriage for their 14 year old daughter to a 32 year old man? Is that abuse and we need to intervene? I'd say so. You?"
It it always, automatically, abuse, I don't know enough about cultures that find the practice moral to make a definitive judgement. I do know that if morality is subjective, then the practice can be moral if a culture agrees that it is. FYI, in many countries around the world the age of consent actually is 14 or younger. Are you suggesting that a 14 year old is unable to consent to marriage to a 32 year old? That a 14 year old is incapable of making a decision that will likely alter the rest of their lives? Is a 14 year old able to make the decision to get a tattoo? Is a 14 year old able to enter into a contract to buy a house? Have elective surgery?
The problem with your previous claim that the decision should be made by the parents, the child, and their personal physician is that it implies a choice. If the state takes away the ability to choose one course or another, but mandates only one acceptable choice then the people who know the child most intimately are forcibly removed from the decision making process. Further, when the default assumption is that a prepubescent child has the capability and brain development to unequivocally that they "feel like" the opposite gender and absolutely must be affirmed in this feeling, it's absurd to claim that the parents have a role at all. Or at least a role beyond opening up their wallets so the "trans" industrial complex can make more money.
Again, we ALREADY agree that it is reasonable that parents have limits, right? They are not free to beat their children. We agree on the principle that there ARE limits on what parents can and can't do, right?
Dan
And I believe you're mistaken on the court and medical treatment...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7545013/#:~:text=Rulings%20upholding%20the%20state's%20right,Massachusetts%201944
Dan
Vague and undetailed anecdotes aren't evidence.
"Do you recognize the obvious reality that the hippies, civil rights activists and other liberal "rebels" in the peace movement, environmental movement, civil rights movement, womens right movement, etc, were of course, striving for a more moral, just, peaceful world? I mean, even if you don't agree with all their conclusions, surely you're aware that they were (often*) acting out of principle, moral human rights stands and opinions... right?"
I recognize that you believe all of those things, and that none of them actually match the claim you made, that I asked you for evidence of.
"If you don't recognize that, maybe that's part of the problem: You have a distorted understanding of the history of those "rebels" you appear to be demeaning and demonizing."
Because obviously it would be impossible for you to have a distorted view of anything. Of course, this still isn't evidence of the example you used, therefore pointless.
"Thank GOD for those rebels, following in the steps of our Lord, Jesus Christ. And doing even greater things than Jesus, who lived in a time before the growth of human rights that came about in large part due to his teachings."
Really, you're now claiming that the "Sex, drugs, and rock n roll" rebels were rebelling in the name of Jesus? That Jesus teaching was the primary motivator behind every person who rebelled in the '50's/'60's?
"* Caveat: Of course, any time we're talking young people or just humanity in general, there are some portion of any "movement" that is swept up in the movement without a full understanding or commitment to the values involved. Wendell Berry writes, warning of the problem of these "movements" as too often temporary fads and something not fully understood or committed to... But that still doesn't mean that these were not good people striving in good faith to do the right thing. Of course, they were.
And of course, there were/are hedonists, amoral activists on all sides, with Trump being one of the most obvious examples of this, along with many of his followers."
And there it is. Dan makes all these sweeping, vague claims as if they apply to everyone, then hides behind a caveat where he essentially negates what he claimed earlier.
Fortunately it's all still just his way to avoid the actual topic of the post, therefore irrelevant.
"I've already answered these questions. I repeat:"
"I DO NOT AGREE with a "dominant culture forcing people to behave in certain ways and suppressing freedom.
I would be OPPOSED to any such culture.
Because of course, I would.
HOW in the name of all that is holy would you ever read my words and believe
I would support suppressing freedom?
Do you have a reading problem?
I've NEVER ONCE stated I support suppressing freedom and have clearly
always been in favor of defending freedom and human rights."
Because when you make these broad, vague, sweeping, general statements you are pretending to address the trees, while actually addressing the forest.
"As to "forcing children to wear Pride clothes," I am entirely unaware of that ever happening in all of human history. I suspect this is a case of you spreading false claims or conspiracy theories. However, if it happened, I oppose it."
It literally just happened, despite your ignorance. It's too bad it took you so long, and me so much effort to elicit this tepid response.
"Do you know why?"
No, but I'm sure you'll have some vague, self aggrandizing, bullshit response that sounds like you oppose everything, but still remain silent when it's your folx doing the oppressing.
"Because I I DO NOT AGREE with a "dominant culture forcing people to behave in certain ways and suppressing freedom."
Really?
SO I googled your imaginary story and found this:
"Students at Marshall Simonds Middle School in Burlington, Massachusetts, were
asked to wear rainbow-colored shirts to celebrate Pride Month on June 2,
but a preplanned protest broke out with
students tearing up Pride flag stickers and chanting: 'USA are my pronouns.' So, from that story, it sounds like students were ASKED to wear clothes but were not forced to. But instead of living and let live, they went further and tore down pride flags and acted inappropriately in ways that cause harm. THEIR RIGHT to wear clothes is one thing and they have the right to choose what clothes they wear or not. BUT, they do not have a right to cause harm."
Interesting notion that when people in authority "ask" children to do something, there's really no coercion at all.
"And here's one point that you're probably not getting:"
You mean that you only support certain kinds of rebellion against certain things? No I got that.
"Our world and culture has a history of oppressing and causing harm to LGBTQ folks. Of taunting them, of telling them they are not wanted, of hating them. IN THAT CONTEXT, tearing down pride flags and saying "my pronouns are USA" (what an inept attempt at being clever, but they're children, so they get a pass... but what ADULTS told them to say that, I wonder?) is causing harm to others."
blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. They were rebelling against authority, you just like what the authority was trying to do.
You used the draft dodger example earlier. Are you really suggesting that every draft dodger (no matter how principled) didn't result in someone else having to go to Vietnam who might otherwise have not been drafted? Since it's logically impossible to not agree with that, then it follows logically that any of the folks who went in the place of these draft dodgers and were injured or killed were harmed by those who dodged the draft. Further, since the draft dodgers were primarily upper/middle class white leftists, and those who went were predominantly lower class POC, that brings up some interesting lines of responsibility. Theoretically, of course.
"So, no, I do not support children being forced to wear something they don't want to."
But you couldn't just say this and not throw the rest of your bullshit up against the wall.
Do you?
"Do you support a girl who was born identified as a boy to wear pants instead of a dress at school?"
I couldn't care less of a biological female wears pants, a dress, a burka, a kimono, or whatever they please as long as isn't indecent or obscene.
"I suspect that you (and if not you, many of your conservative allies) would actively support forcing trans girls to wear the clothes they choose (ie, not a dress) at school. Do you suspect the same thing?"
This is what happens when you "suspect" (make shit up), you always end up wrong.
"And if so, we can see that I consistently am opposed to forcing unwanted dress (which didn't happen in this story, it's another example of conspiracy theories and weak minded people believing made up claims) while you and yours are not."
Well, since your made up bullshit, is just made up bullshit, there is literally nothing to "see", except you trying to make yourself look good in your own eyes.
"Conspiracy minded people"
If the "conspiracies" keep being proven to actually be True, wouldn't that make those people "Truth minded people"?
Craig didn't answer my question directly. Instead, he said...
I couldn't care less of a biological female wears pants, a dress, a burka, a kimono, or whatever they please as long as isn't indecent or obscene.
So, just to clarify, IF there was a transgender girl (someone YOU would call a "biological male" even if it causes harm to others), you would be okay with her wearing a dress to school... you wouldn't support rules to stop that?
Would you oppose this girl/young woman in going to the bathroom she's most comfortable in?
Would you oppose school rules that say this dress-wearing girl would have to use the boys' bathroom?
I suspect that you COULD care less, but you tell me.
Craig...
This is what happens when you "suspect" (make shit up), you always end up wrong.
https://www.9news.com/article/news/nation-world/trans-girl-mississippi-graduation-dress-code/507-0fdfcf11-4e9f-422c-9aec-b30bcbb49fee
I'm making nothing up. In the real world, schools are telling trans girls they can't wear dresses. Will you oppose those schools and join in defense of transgender people who are being harmed by these rules and laws your side is creating?
There are very hateful people telling these children, young adults and their parents how they can and can't identify. This is causing additional harm to LGBTQ folks. Will you be an ally for LGBTQ folks or will you side with their oppressors, including those who are LEGISLATING rules/laws that cause harm? DO you support the individuals and their parents or not?
I suspect you're being a hypocrite and just trying to hide it, but you tell me. I'd LOVE to hear you say you support these LGBTQ folks and their parents who want them to be who they are.
Hypocrite? No?
They were rebelling against authority,
You can ignorantly keep saying this WITH NO SUPPORT IN THE REAL WORLD WHATSOEVER, but that won't make it more true.
By and large, at the bottom of it all, they weren't just mindlessly rebelling against "authority." The real world data shows they were rebelling against oppression, racism, sexism, homophobia, consumerism.
If you knew anything AT ALL about the rebels of 50s/60s, you'd know this.
Can you at the very least admit that you have NO DATA AT ALL IN THE WHOLE WIDE REAL WORLD beyond what you pulled out of your ass that "most" or "the majority" of rebellion in the 50s/60s was about just mindlessly rebelling? That they weren't rebelling against the oppression of black folks? About sexism and the straight jackets women were in?
Can you acknowledge that reality?
OR, conversely, if you think you have, you know, actual data and shit to support your empty-headed and unsupported claims, SUPPORT IT. Provide the data.
Again, I ask you: Do you not know of any actual rebels of this time period? Do you not know who and what they were rebelling against? Are you so simple-minded and uninformed as to think, "Well, I THINK they were just mindlessly rebelling against everything, so it must be true..."?
Earlier you said...
"Instead of bitching about a semantic issue, how about making a better suggestion to describe the parent child relationship?"
1. Children and all humans are their own unique entity, no one's property. They, we each have some individual rights that should not be denied.
2. Children's rights, however, are more limited than adults, due to the nature of being a child, a developing human adult.
3. Parents, then, are the caretakers of their children, with an obligation to raise them to be healthy adults, as best they can.
4. At a different scale, we are all caretakers of one another, with some reasonable, moral duty to help one another, as best we can. This is especially true for children, the poor and other struggling people.
Agreed so far?
You've repeatedly argued that children in utero are essentially the property of the mother and that she has unfettered ability to do with that child whatever she wants. You have also argued that children in utero do not have all of the rights of a full grown human. You have further argued that the human brain is not fully developed until age 25.
"1. Children and all humans are their own unique entity, no one's property. They, we each have some individual rights that should not be denied."
When does this status as "their own unique entity" start? Which specific unlimited rights would you give children? Do parents not have responsibilities that would supersede these rights temporarily?
"2. Children's rights, however, are more limited than adults, due to the nature of being a child, a developing human adult."
So. These vague statements don't add anything to the conversation. Are you suggesting that children have the right to make irreversible changes to their properly functioning bodies with no limits?
"3. Parents, then, are the caretakers of their children, with an obligation to raise them to be healthy adults, as best they can."
You act like these vague statements are some profound revelation. Wouldn't protecting one's children from making a irreversible change to their properly functioning body until they were able to cognitively and legally give informed consent be a good thing?
"4. At a different scale, we are all caretakers of one another, with some reasonable, moral duty to help one another, as best we can. This is especially true for children, the poor and other struggling people."
If you say so.
"Agreed so far?"
With you vague, general, truisms? I guess to some degree. The problem I have is that you are likely going to try to twist these bullet points into some rationale for parents to unhesitating support children in making irreversible changes to their properly functioning bodies when they are not old enough to cognitively or legally give informed consent. But ONLY in certain situations where YOU think it's appropriate.
Hypothetical. 12 year old girl falls deeply and madly in love with her 25 year old teacher. She insists that this is the only man she will ever want to marry and that if she has to wait, she will probably kill herself. Using your logic, why wouldn't the parents consent, presuming that the man has demonstrated that he truly and deeply loves her and will be a good and faithful husband?
Where your construct fails, is that it could literally be used for any desire that any child has ever expressed.
Now that I've dealt with the most recent pile of bullshit, I'm out for the weekend.
"So, just to clarify, IF there was a transgender girl (someone YOU would call a "biological male" even if it causes harm to others), you would be okay with her wearing a dress to school... you wouldn't support rules to stop that?
Would you oppose this girl/young woman in going to the bathroom she's most comfortable in?
Would you oppose school rules that say this dress-wearing girl would have to use the boys' bathroom?"
Given there's no such thing as "trans" anyone, which would justify treating a dude as a chick just because he says he is one, I fully support schools denying their demand that all others in the school join in their delusion. I'm not concerned with any alleged "harm" this might inflict upon a kid who is already harmed by his/her own delusions. There's no "harm" is insisting the delusion is just delusion and the kid needs to get with the program. There's no "harm" in providing truth, science and reason for such kids such that they learn to cope with their delusion which is most likely going to dissipate before they reach adulthood. That's how adults deal with childhood delusions. That's not how progressive asshats do it, and the kids suffer as a result.
I thought I had posted a comment, and maybe you just haven't allowed it yet. No matter. My thoughts were simply that there's nothing wrong with any school or institution imposing dress codes which "force" kids to wear clothes they might not find personally appealing.
Dan's last four points are truly deceptions standing in for logic he sorely lacks. It's not a matter of children being property, so that line of argument is crap. But a parent's responsibilities go much farther than any leftist cares to accept where those responsibilities in any way conflict with leftist perversions. Dan speaks of rights of the child except for the one which is most important...the right to life...and then pretend he "cares" by enabling delusions about gender identity. Dan's a liar and a true proponent of evil. For him, leftist dogma supersedes all reason, truth and logic.
With you vague, general, truisms? I guess to some degree. The problem I have is that you are likely going to try to twist these bullet points into some rationale for parents to unhesitating support children in making irreversible changes to their properly functioning bodies when they are not old enough to cognitively or legally give informed consent.
I was taking it one step at a time so we could be clear on what is being discussed, what principles are involved and find where we can agree and disagree. There is no "twist..." I'm not trying to "trick" you into agreeing with me.
I'm just saying we agree on the principle that there are times that we place reasonable limits on what parents can and can't do to their children and establishing that it's reasonable to use "harm" as a measure for where to draw those lines.
You APPEAR to agree on those principles, although your continued reliance on vague, snarky comments instead of clear answers makes it difficult to tell. Why NOT find where we have common ground? Why NOT think clearly through what criteria we have for when it's important to intervene in parenting that should be normally left to the parents (a point on which we agree)?
IF we can agree that Harm is a reasonable place to draw lines and create rules that parents must abide by (like laws against physical or sexual abuse), then we can ask, "Does allowing trans girls to wear dresses and go by Lucy cause harm OR does denying trans girls the option of wearing dresses and going by Lucy that option cause harm?"
Isn't that reasonable?
And if we can agree that's a reasonable question, then we can ask how we measure harm and which expertise we fall back on.
Isn't that reasonable?
Or what of the case where mother wants to call her "she, her and Lucy" and divorced Dad refuses to... is that causing harm? (And, by the way, the data says yes, by and large, and the people involved will tell you yes... so if YOU don't want to cause harm, maybe you should just not be a jerk and refer to trans girls as girls and she, not "biological males." - there's no moral reason to be a jackass for no good reason). And how do we intervene, or do we?
What's reasonable?
What's wrong with being systematic about these sort of moral/policy questions?
And for what it's worth, the oppressive conservative bullshit fearmongering about "cutting off body parts" generally does not happen pre-18. VERY rarely. By and large, it's not what we're talking about when we're talking about gender affirming care for children.
So get your mind out of those girls pants, fella.
Hypothetical. 12 year old girl falls deeply and madly in love with her 25 year old teacher. She insists that this is the only man she will ever want to marry and that if she has to wait, she will probably kill herself. Using your logic, why wouldn't the parents consent, presuming that the man has demonstrated that he truly and deeply loves her and will be a good and faithful husband?
Why? Because, of course, there are literally NO experts who say that it's good and healthy for the 25 year old pedophile to marry a 12 year old. On the other hand, gender experts say that it IS healthy - and SAVES LIVES - for the 12 year old trans girl to wear dresses and go by Lucy.
Indeed, expert opinion will say that this man is a pedophile seeking to engage in actions that WILL harm the child. Because of course it is.
So, EVEN IF one's religion says it's okay to marry/rape a 12 year old, reason, expert opinion and reality oppose it.
THAT is why we establish harm as a criteria and rely upon expert opinion and data to make these sorts of decisions.
Understand the difference?
You've repeatedly argued that children in utero are essentially the property of the mother and that she has unfettered ability to do with that child whatever she wants.
I simply factually have not. Not in the real world. Read for understanding, little brother.
You have also argued that children in utero do not have all of the rights of a full grown human.
Factually correct. In utero children absolutely can not get a drivers license, for instance. You disagree with reality?
You have further argued that the human brain is not fully developed until age 25.
Factually correct, according to the data. And yet, the data also shows that children at a young age begin to recognize gender and orientation. So, do I support a five year old boy having his penis removed? No. No one does.
Now, stop right there and understand: NO ONE IN THE WHOLE WIDE WORLD is suggesting that five year olds with penises - or TEN year olds or 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16? year olds - have their penis removed. NO surgery is being done before puberty. None.
Do you understand that? Stop with the fearmongering. Reason like an adult... you know, like someone who's turned at least 25 and has an adult brain.
As it is, I trust the 16 year old transgender young lady's brain more than your old brain.
Some people never reach full adult reasoning. Which is also supported by data.
"I simply factually have not. Not in the real world. Read for understanding, little brother."
Don't you just love the condescension?
Of course you factually have, liar...every time you insist that the decision to murder one's own child in utero on the basis of a false risk is solely the decision of the "mother". If that's not treating a child like property, then nothing is.
Post a Comment