When it comes to parent/child/family relationships is biology important?
Should parents be able to raise their children in the manner the parents deem best?
Should parents be the final authority when it comes to medical decisions for their minor children? Especially for those under, say, 12?
Should parents be allowed to pass along their values and traditions to their children?
Now, I know Dan well enough to be able to predict his response. He'll likely jump immediately to the most extreme cases of parental abuse he can conjure up in his demented mind, and exclaim that those activities should be prohibited. To which I say, of course. I'm not talking about selling children into slavery, sexually abusing them, physically abusing them, or any of the numerous demented acts Dan might offer as excuses. Are there instances where someone should step in to protect children, obviously. Yet in those cases isn't it better for a biological relative to care for the children than to put them in an orphanage or foster care system?
I'm talking about normal stuff. Should Sikhs be able to raise their children according to their heritage? Should Italians be able to gather for Sunday dinner? Should parents be able to teach their children that X or Y is wrong? Should Amish parents be able to prevent their children from having an iPhone? Should a 5 year old be able to get a tattoo without parental involvement? Should a school nurse be able to dispense medication without parental involvement?
Again, it's obvious that this sort of parental "control" is time limited and that children might choose different values than the values their parents raised them with. That is perfectly normal and beyond what this post is about.
To be clear, and I don't do this often, any comments alluding to obvious abuse of children as examples will be aborted. Anything along those lines is merely a stupid attempt to control the conversation and will simply cease to exist.
36 comments:
Should parents be able to raise their children in the manner the parents deem best?
Yes. As you caveat: As long as we're not talking about abuse, parents should be able to (and are, in free nations) raise their children as they deem best. That includes making medical decisions for them and mental health decisions.
Should parents be the final authority when it comes to medical decisions for their minor children? Especially for those under, say, 12?
Yes, especially for those under 12. Again with the caveat, as long as they're not causing harm, parents (and with their medical/mental advisors offering input) should be the final authority UNTIL harm is done.
Should parents be allowed to pass along their values and traditions to their children?
Yes, they should. And, as those children age into their teen years and their young adulthood, they should begin making those decisions for themselves.
That is to say, IF the parents (and their medical/mental health advisors) say that it's best for my child to be allowed to identify as She and call herself Irene, THEN the state or school system should cooperate with that decision and self-determination.
Do you agree with that specific instance?
And if the child is gay and the parents of course support that reality, and that child/young adult wants to go to the prom with his boyfriend, the state and the school should not interfere... do you agree?
Should Sikhs be able to raise their children according to their heritage?
Yes.
Should Italians be able to gather for Sunday dinner?
Yes.
Should parents be able to teach their children that X or Y is wrong?
Yes.
Should Amish parents be able to prevent their children from having an iPhone?
Yes. We certainly did until they turned 16 or so.
Should a 5 year old be able to get a tattoo without parental involvement?
No.
Should a school nurse be able to dispense medication without parental involvement?
No, short of a medical emergency (if the child had OD'd on an opioid, the nurse should be allowed to administer Narcan to save the child's life, if the child was bitten by a venomous snake, the nurse should administer antivenom). Do you agree with the endangered child exceptions?
"Do you agree with that specific instance?"
1. No, but as long as they are not mutilating, sterilizing, or permanently damaging the child it's their choice. As the data tells us @80% of "trans" children realize that they are not "trans" as they age and become comfortable with their biological reality.
"And if the child is gay and the parents of course support that reality, and that child/young adult wants to go to the prom with his boyfriend, the state and the school should not interfere... do you agree?"
Again, no. But I'm not suggesting that I impose my positions on others.
I personally do, yet for years that likely wouldn't have happened.
https://winteryknight.com/2025/05/21/colorado-parents-cant-raise-their-kids-according-to-their-own-values/#respond
Given Dan's responses earlier it'll be interesting to see how he reacts to a state law in CO which strips parents of many of the rights he seemingly agreed with earlier.
Given the documented harms to "trans" children subjected to medical experimentation:
Infertility
Bone Health Deterioration
Cardiovascular Complications
Sexual Dysfunction
Regret/Detransition
Mental Health Concerns
Cancer Risk
How is inflicting any of those things on a child not just as abusive as any other harmful action?
Data also tells us that the whole ""trans" your children or they suicide themselves" narrative was also bullshit. It's likely that we'll end up seeing more suicides of children who were "transed" at a young age when they realize how badly their bodies were mutilated.
Can a 9 year old really make an informed medical decision abut the risk/reward of these experimental medical procedures and comprehend the negatives?
"The left wants you to believe that the government has the right to sever the parent-child relationship by ending the importance of parental authority. It also wants you to believe in a false reality that sex is not immutable by forcing even non-parents to use fake names and pronouns. Their ultimate goal is to get to children. They want them so badly, and you, as their parent, stand in the way."
This, this is the goal. There is a strain of thought that insists that the government should take the place of biological parents.
The time is now, the battle is here, will there be brave parents in CO who are willing to stand up for their parental rights and to protect their children. I hope so.
Dan again resorts to extremes which don't seem to align with the tone and intention of the post. An adult faced with a dying child when seconds count is not the same as enabling leftist ideologies against which the parents are rationally, intelligently and morally opposed given the irrational, lack of intelligence and immorality of leftist ideologies.
I want to be clear about something. Given that the data tells us that @80% of "trans" children grow out of it by the time they reach young adulthood, I would not support a parent indulging their child in medical experiments that cause so much documented harm to the child. If they want to play along with a child pretending to be another gender, sure that's survivable. Irreversible medical experiments, is a step too far.
Where there is no threat to the child, schools, governments and such should defer to the wishes of the parents. In schools in particular, there is no just authority in doing anything which is beyond the scope of what a school is meant to do, which is to impart knowledge to student and maintain order and discipline to an extent which allows that to take place.
While Dan does veer into some extreme situations here, I decided to acknowledge his general restraint in not letting his imagination go crazy.
Having said that, I clearly remember going to the school nurse for a headache and being unable to get an aspirin because they couldn't reach my parents. IMO it's common sense for a school nurse to be able to administer life saving treatment in those rare cases when it's necessary, yet this has been contentious in the past.
Obviously, I get your point. Despite my clear notes about not going to ridiculous extremes, Dan was unable to completely control himself. In this case I chose to show him grace, and allow it because it is something that should be self evident but hasn't always been.
You are correct as well, that there is a risk of Dan (which he does regularly) using the extreme examples he cited (as reasonable as they are), as an excuse to do exactly what you claim. It seems likely that he'll say something like, "If a school nurse saving a child's life by giving them Narcan is OK, then of course a school nurse aiding and abetting a child "transitioning" by hiding information from the child's parents and lying to them is OK because suicide.". Of course that is two entirely different things and the whole "suicide" narrative seems to have not been supported by data.
As I've gotten the responses I thought I'd get from him, and I've added context, it'll be interesting to see how consistent he is in the positions he seemed quite clear about in his early comments.
Absolutely. Biological or adoptive family should always be deferred to other than in cases of abuse.
Even if they do things we don't agree with, like refuse transfusions.
I very much hope so, too. In Naperville, IL, there's a battle over trans crap. A brief snippet from a hearing or school board meeting had two adults speaking on behalf of each side of the issue. The dude who spoke the bullshit pro-trans narrative looked like a normal man, which was a nice change to the typical pro-trans enabler. There's a vast difference between equal care of kids suffering from the delusion the Dan's of the world believe is not delusion at all versus enabling and accommodating the delusion at the expense of normal people.
But anyway, this post seems to be about the fascism of BLM type destruction of cities and the suffering endured by those the fascists pretend to champion.
Sorry, I didn't delete the above comment after I copy/pasted it here.
What the bill in question actually says is:
when making child custody decisions and determining the best interests of a child for purposes of parenting time, a court shall consider deadnaming, misgendering, or threatening to publish material related to an individual's gender-affirming health-care services as types of coercive control.
So, it's speaking specifically of instances where we have ONE parent who supports their transgender child and presumably another parent who does NOT support their transgender child.
Right?
In that case, it's not speaking of ignoring the wishes of the parents to raise the child as they deem fit, it's a parental split decision scenario. ONE parent wants to deadname their child and the other parent wants to support their child being called Alice if she damn well pleases.
Right?
Now, are you saying (I'm asking because I don't know) that you think the STATE should decide always in favor of the parent opposed to supporting their transgender child and the state should decide AGAINST the wishes of the gender-supportive parent, the child themselves and their medical/mental health advisors?
Marshal:
Dan again resorts to extremes which don't seem to align with the tone and intention of the post.
I was giving direct, clear, unambiguous YES, NO answers. Like Craig did, I noted that there are caveats and those caveats tend to be in the extremes.
Now, fellas, the bill in question also define Deadnaming and misgendering as discriminatory acts, which of course, they are. The language of the bill:
"define deadnaming and misgendering as discriminatory acts in the "Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act", and prohibit these discriminatory acts in places of public accommodation"
So, given that you support the parental decision, if the parents send young Alice to school in a dress (per Alice's wishes and in conjunction with the family's health care team), would you SUPPORT those parents on insisting on that child being called Alice?
Would you defend the "right" of a teacher to engage in discriminatory acts and deadname that girl and do so contrary to the wishes of the parents?
Or would you side with the parents and agree, the teacher must call her Alice?
Do you truly support parental choice in these matters?
I suspect that MAYBE Craig would side with the parents and that Marshal would side with the teacher in opposition to the wishes of the parents to raise their child as they see fit. But you tell me.
As to your "80% of trans kids change back..." claim, you know that this is based on old data? That the latest data shows nothing like that... quite the opposite?
"Recent studies of adolescents who have received gender-affirming medical treatment, the subject of Tennessee’s ban, show the rates of people stopping treatment, regretting treatment, or reverting to their birth-assigned sex range from 1% to 9%, with most being on the lower end of that range."
https://www.politifact.com/article/2024/dec/16/1-or-85-two-numbers-before-scotus-purport-to-show/
and...
https://www.healthline.com/health-news/94-of-transgender-youth-maintain-gender-identity-5-years-after-social-transition
and...
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9936352/
Craig conspiratorial said, with a crazed laugh (BWA HA HA!!)...
"The left wants you to believe that the government has the right to sever the parent-child relationship by ending the importance of parental authority. It also wants you to believe in a false reality that sex is not immutable by forcing even non-parents to use fake names and pronouns. Their ultimate goal is to get to children. They want them so badly, and you, as their parent, stand in the way."
This, this is the goal.
Don't forget that we want to eat the children, too.
Good God, y'all are so damned dangerously daft sometimes.
Well, you're creative. I'll give you that. By all means, lets bring the full weight of the government down on one parent who stands on principle.
I guess it's the government's role now to simply decide that only one biological parent gets to speak into decisions about the child's future.
I'm saying that the state PUNISHING the parent who chooses the side of biological reality is a problem. I realize that custody decisions happen and that they can be contentious. Yet to make this ONE SINGLE FACTOR determinative and to PUNISH the parent who hs their child ripped from them is ridiculous.
Especially, if the intent of the pro-"trans" parent is to subject the (especially young) child to various irreversible experimental procedures which will likely result in one or more of the harmful outcomes listed elsewhere.
In the world of those who've attempted suicide, there's a saying, "Never seek a permanent solution to a temporary problem". It seems that the data is pretty clear that allowing a "trans" child to simply grow up unmolested by drugs and surgical mutilation is the best course in @80% of cases.
By all means lets have the government remove half of the biological parents simply because they want their child to grow up and make thrie own informed decisions as an adult.
"HB 25-1312 also changes the state law to include deadnaming and misgendering as discriminatory acts. This makes using biological pronouns and birth names in a public place a discriminatory practice, which could mean fines starting at $5,000 per violation. It requires teachers to use “chosen” names and pronouns, and that school districts provide clothes and other amenities for these confused children, even if the parents disapprove."
Because turning the children over to the ministrations of the state aligns perfectly with Dan's earlier responses.
I have friends with vacation homes in CO, and I can't see how anyone with a conscience could support the state of CO right now.
"So, given that you support the parental decision, if the parents send young Alice to school in a dress (per Alice's wishes and in conjunction with the family's health care team), would you SUPPORT those parents on insisting on that child being called Alice?"
Again, no. Yet IF both parents agreed that they wanted their child to dress in a certain way and to be called a different name, and consented to the school going along with their joint decision, I wouldn't object to the policy.
Although, as noted above. The bill supports schools "transing" kids without the knowledge or consent of the parents and also provides for fines of $5,000 for a parent who correctly identifies the biological sex of their child.
So I would, as always side with the parents, no matter how deluded they might be in supporting non irreversible/harmful medical experimentation on their child. You see, unlike the ASPL, I can disagree with those who are deluded without attacking them.
I do not side with the state in engaging in this sort of behavior when it's hidden from the parents and they are lied to, do you?
The problem is when it's the state siding against the parents.
What a strange position to take in thinking that choosing to tell a child The Truth is a bad thing.
Well, I guess "old data" must automatically be wrong then as long as it applies to this one issue.
Of course, your "data" doesn't really disprove anything conclusively and simply points out how experimental these irreversible medical mutilations really are.
Let's just ignore the data about harmful outcomes as well.
It's every parent's dream to have their child grow up into a mutilated adult, with a vagina made out of their colon, be unable to actually have sex or reproduce. The parents must be so proud, It'll be interesting as the lawsuits progress. Because we all know that a child under the age of 18 has the critical thinking ability to make irreversible decisions that will cause them harm.
What's next, a state law punishing gay men that won't date of have sex with "trans" men? Let's punish those bigots too, amiright?
Well, when you have nothing else, I guess lying is what you do.
Since I never said this, never let out a "crazed laugh", or anything I guess it's undeniable that you simply chose to lie.
I knew you couldn't stay away from the stupid extreme crap you usually spew.
Nope, the push for more government control of children and less for parents has been going on for a while. Hell, just look at the hatred and vitriol aimed at parents who had (well founded, and correct) hesitation about giving their children multiple COVID shots. Hell, look at how the government forced (using lies) people to get the COVID shots. Yeah, governments never want more control (especially DFL) they always want less.
Watch Dan slither away from his full throated support of parental rights as he bows before the "trans" Narrative.
Indeed, sometimes old data is bunk. They used to think that women were prone to hysteria. They used to think all manner of ill about gay men and black people that was not, of course, factual.
Just because research has been done doesn't make it always valid or true.
And if you read the linked articles, you'll see specifically WHY the old data reached such drastically different results as opposed to the newer research.
Which is not to say that the new research is infallible, either. Just that it's more recent and more inclusive of more up-to-date information and trends.
We should always look for the best data, right?
Did you see that the title for one of the research studies in the old data was something like "Why are there sissyboys?"
Yeah, THAT is unbiased and science driven!
I knew you couldn't stay away from the stupid extreme crap you usually spew.
! SAYS the guy who JUST repeated an insane allegation that "they" (the left, the liberals, the gays... those EVIL people!!!) want to "get your children..." A point which you AGREED with by saying, "THIS. This is the goal!"
That's not crazy. That's not extreme.
Come on. Admit it. Even YOU can see that this is as insane as literally hell. Can't you?
Do you really suspect there's a cabal of liberals, hollywood elites and "the gays" who want to "get to children..."?
Look, if Q-Anon is your source for data, well, you know you might be an idiotic fool if...
Well because "they" used to think something in the distant past then we should just throw out any "old" data because "sometimes" "old data" is bad.
The problem is that, we're not talking about some old data, we're talking about fairly recent old data. But you're right, we should ignore any data that doesn't affirm the "trans" Narrative. Hell, we should tell Europe to fuck off with all of the data that caused them to stop "transing" children. because they don't know anything.
Look, I understand your commitment to letting children make uninformed decisions about experimental, irreversible, medical procedures that could cause them permanent harm. Because the data that tells us that children don't have the critical thinking skills developed until they are over 20 is old data, and sometimes old data is wrong. So absolutely, let's support 12 year olds (hell there was just a push for newborns to be "transed") in making permanent decisions about a temporary problem.
If, as y'all claim, all this gender stuff is "fluid" then making a permanent decision to change something that is "fluid" would be objectively stupid would it not?
Given that most of the "research" on this issue is done by the "trans" medical industrial complex and by people who stand to make millions of dollars, and that Europe has rejected most of the "research" from the advocacy groups, maybe finding unbiased research would be the place to start.
Craig:
the push for more government control of children and less for parents has been going on for a while.
Says the guy who is part of the crowd literally creating laws penalizing LGBTQ kids and their parents for "letting" their kids be LGBTQ. The same crowd that wants the conservative Christian parents to be the ones to decide which books are in libraries EVEN WHEN not all the parents agree with those conservatives.
Says the same guy who is part of the crowd/voting bloc that would deny gay marriage if they could. Y'all have LONG been about controlling others, including other parents, and limiting the access that people who dare to disagree with you might want.
For y'all, it's not enough to say, "I don't want my child or myself around those wonderful drag queens reading stories, so I won't send my child to that book reading..." NO, y'all want to criminalize and restrict drag queens for everyone else.
Come on. Get serious.
"Alabama Republicans filed legislation that would prohibit drag performances in public places where children are present."
"Kentucky's Senate passed a bill that would outlaw drag shows from being performed within 1,000 feet of schools, parks or walking trails..."
It doesn't matter if OTHER parents want to take their children to the Drag Queen Story Time show, conservatives are trying to ban it for everyone. Right?
https://people.com/politics/anti-drag-legislation-united-states/
Same for trans-affirming care. While you all are FREE to not support your children in transitioning, you all are creating laws banning parents and medical providers and individuals for deciding for themselves.
If you say so. You're literally endorsing a bill that would criminalize a parent telling their own child the Truth about their biological sex and that protects agents of the state in lying and hiding material facts about children from their parents.
Yeah, there's been a growing movement towards taking what have historically been parental rights based in biology or adoption and transferring those rights to agents of the state and the medical establishment. How else could you explain agents of the state facilitating minors receiving elective medical procedures without the knowledge of their parents?
Nope, I think I see it differently because I'm not inclined toward giving the government/society more control of individuals.
No, I think that there is a group of people (mostly on the left) who (much like y'all did with Sanger) have absorbed a mindset that society.government knows better how to raise individual children. That we can't leave the raising of our children to amateurs, we need professionals to raise our kids. Heaven forbid, we can't have home schooling because the state run schools do a much better job of educating children. Except they don't. I just posted data from Illinois that shows precisely ZERO schools in the state (A blue state) have kids that can read at grade level.
But hey if childish insults help you feel superior and condescension is how you this grace is shown, you do you.
Clearly Dan is cool with the state siding with the parent wallowing in biological absurdity as if that's the parent acting in the best interests of the child. If the gov't of CO believes in the false "trans" narrative, they are equally guilty in abusing children who are far more likely to reject their "trans" disordered thinking as they grow older.
Well, it must be bad if dan's pulling out the "anti LGBTQ law" bogeyman.
Parents have always decided what books are in public school libraries, you just don't like it when y'all don't get to decide. How many instances have we seen of parents reading books at school board meetings and being told that the material is inappropriate for adults at a school board meeting, when the book is freely available in grade school libraries. By all means, lets give children access to sexually explicit material, and ban Huck Finn while we're at it.
By all means lie about my views on "gay marriage".
Yeah, I don't think it's appropriate for a dude cosplaying as an overspecialized woman reading sexually explicit books in public schools is appropriate. If y'all want to have a private event, go to town.
Again, lying about men cosplaying as women.
Yeah, and I also think having small children dancing or dressing in a sexually provocative manner for the entertainment of adults (whether in a pageant or drag bar) is a great idea either.
Insane, restricting sexualized men cosplaying as women to private spaces to perform for children, what a scandal. Hell take your kids to Hooters and The Body Shop why not. Who needs to restrict sexualized content by age anyway.
Then let those other parents organize their own drag queen story hour. You do understand that having common sense restrictions on what children are exposed to isn't a bad thing, don't you. Seriously, why restrict any activity that parents might want their kids to be involved in? Just open it all up.
If preventing children from undergoing experimental, irreversible, medical procedures that has a high degree of harm for them is a crime, then I'm proudly guilty.
Infertility
Bone Health Deterioration
Cardiovascular Complications
Sexual Dysfunction
Regret/Detransition
Mental Health Concerns
Cancer Risk
These are the harmful effects we know about because most of this is still experimental. I get it, you want to affirm children into making permanent, irreversible, changes to their perfectly healthy and functioning bodies because you're more committed to a Narrative than to children.
Between the carnage of mutilated children and the carnage of abortion, y'all are definitely on the right side of something. A millstone maybe.
Dan has often expressed support for ignoring immoral laws. Here, Dan insists teachers or parents abide Colorado's immoral "Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act", which regards "deadnaming" and referencing the true gender of the disordered to be illegal acts. Thus, Dan only supports ignoring laws he regards as immoral based on his self-serving notions of morality.
So, given the available data regarding the harm of "trans health care", if both parents are stupid, I would support removing the child from the home, just as I would in any other case of any other form of child abuse. The child clearly isn't safe in that home.
You know what, you are right. If parents want to mutilate perfectly healthy children to further the fiction that they can change their biology, why should I stop them. Of course that would mean that the parents should assume full and complete responsibility (especially financial) for the "transing" and any negative side effects that come with it.
I happen to know of one disordered girl who has "transitioned" in order to pretend she's male and has maintained for well over five years now. Then of course their Chastity Bono who still pretends she's a dude. It happens. That just means the disorder is more severe in their cases. And of course, both are adults, so who cares at this point? Of the person of whom I'm aware, I don't know at what age she began her transition. Sadly, she's influenced her half-sister to do the same thing. How much their disorder played a role in their depressed father (a long time personal friend of mine) hanging himself in his garage I don't know.
In any case, to enable anyone not a legal adult in this crap is child abuse and should not be codified in law.
How evil to mock someone for pointing to evil blatantly taking place. Yes. The progressive left is indeed "after our kids", and the evidence is as plain as Craig has described it, and arguably even more so. And note how fascist the response is toward parents who seek to assert their righteous authority over their own children! More evidence of progressive fascism, too!
Craig falsely claimed:
Watch Dan slither away from his full throated support of parental rights as he bows before the "trans" Narrative.
I've not changed my position. I was quite clear and direct. I gave direct YES and NO answers to your questions and I meant what I said.
IF two parents want their child to be called Alice and so does Alice, THEN schools should call her Alice.
IF Mom thinks one way and Dad another way, then there is NOT one single message from the parents.
YOUR questions were: SHOULD the parents be able to make decisions about their (especially young) children. MY answer is YES.
But if ONE parent thinks one way and the other parent thinks another way, then "The Parents" don't have one opinion, do they?
In that case, those involved have to look to other factors, don't they?
That does not change my answer. I was and am consistent and clear.
What remains to be seen is, are YOU consistent and clear?
IF both parents want Sally to be called Sally because that's her name, DO YOU SUPPORT them insisting that "the state," the school and others do as the parents want? OR, do you think "the state" should dictate to the parents what they must do?
I've been clear. What about you?
C'mon Art, you've gotta get with the times and on the right side of history on this. Clearly we should indulge our children's fantasies at even the earliest of ages. If your 5 year old wants to be a fireman, let him. He's a fireman because he says so. If your 8 year old wants to be a Mermaid, throw her in the lagoon and let her go swim with Ariel. If your 10 year old wants to tattoo his whole body to look like a Monitor lizard, why stand in his way? If your 12 year old wants to go through life mutilated, sterile, sexless, and degenerative bone disease, why stop them? It's their choice. Of course agents of the state should facilitate this. Just like agents of the state should secretly take children to Madrassas and mosques without parental notification. If an agent of the state wants to take some kids to one of them snake handling churches why not, and why tell the parents?
When Dan starts playing the "falsely claimed" game (after lying himself) about something that hasn't happened yet, you know he's out of substance. Of course, he could prove me wrong by changing direction, but that's unlikely.
So, if the parents disagree on a decision (especially one with such a great risk of permanent harm) the state should jump in) on one side, not based on the evidence in the specific case, but because they've predetermined their decision without even allowing both sides to present a case. Further, they predetermined that they will criminalize one parent, before anything has happened. This is literally the state making a mockery of due process in custody cases. This allows the state to facilitate a child "transing" while lying to and hiding it from the parents. Yet that lie is somehow OK with you.
Should not custody cases or cases where the parents disagree be decided in a court where both sides have the ability to present evidence in from of an unbiased judge or jury? Should the state really predetermine the outcome of a custody case before the case is even brought?
I've already answered your idiotic, repeated question at least twice. If you really wane the answer refer to my earlier comments and if you have specific questions about what I said then ask those not these bullshit time wasters.
But yes, I've been consistent and clear.
Craig:
It seems likely that he'll say something like, "If a school nurse saving a child's life by giving them Narcan is OK, then of course a school nurse aiding and abetting a child "transitioning" by hiding information from the child's parents and lying to them is OK because suicide."
GOOD GOD, y'all are batshit crazy.
NO CHILDREN ANYWHERE EVER ARE GOING TO SCHOOL TO TRANSITION, AIDED BY SCHOOL OFFICIALS.
Just because your insane narcissistic ACTUAL sexual predator says something (or just because Q-Anon says something) doesn't mean that's reality. Indeed, IF YOU ARE GETTING INSANE-SOUNDING THEORIES from insane people, you SHOULD NOT BELIEVE IT.
Lord, have mercy on those who deliberately embrace lies and stupidity.
Well, Dan makes another unproven, absolute, claim , I'm shocked.
Then just makes up more bullshit lies.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2022/07/18/gender-transition-school-parent-notification/
https://www.heritage.org/gender/commentary/parents-are-fed-public-schools-secretly-transitioning-children
https://www.newsnationnow.com/us-news/education/school-daughter-become-boy-parents/
As with all of Dan's hysterical, absolute, claims it only takes one example to demonstrate the falseness of his claim.
Post a Comment