https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/article-abstract/2674039
Despite the claims to the contrary, (that there are no irreversible surgeries being performed on children) it appears that there are enough instances of performing double mastectomies on healthy children to warrant a study of it's value and effectiveness. One presumes that if the study finds that performing elective, major surgery on children is "effective", then we'll be seeing more of this type of surgery.
78 comments:
Transmasculine youth, who are assigned female at birth
This nonsensical statement made it useless to read any farther. No one is "assigned" a sex/gender; they are born that way.
There is much that is nonsensical about the entire topic. The claim is that parents are not pushing their children into treatments that can't be reversed, his study indicates otherwise. As do questions abut how reversable hormone therapy is.
There's a reasonable question for you too. LGBTQ folk are a reality and not going away. Trans kids are a reality. My question to you is, who do you think should make decisions for and with trans children? Their parents and their medical and mental health support? Or government?
There are problems with your question.
1. Why limit the question to this one particular subset of medical procedures?
2. Are you suggesting that the courts should NOT be intervening in situations where the parents disagree on what is appropriate?
3. Why do we not allow children to make decisions about medical decisions by themselves?
4. Should parents automatically validate and support every desire expressed by a child?
5. Are you suggesting that state employees should have no role in making these sorts of decisions/
Now, we both know that the chances of those questions being answered is virtually zero, and we both know that those are simply a distraction from the post. Given that, I will answer your question.
As a general rule (the main exception being life or death emergency situations where the parents can't be reached and immediate intervention might be necessary to save the child's life), the parents should be the final decision makers regarding medical procedures undergone by their children. Further, I would suggest that making a potentially irreversible decision based on the desires of a child is a foolish way for parents to act. I see no role for the government in these decisions, despite the active role that the government is currently playing in these sorts of decisions.
Are you suggesting that the government should be involved in making these decisions?
Are you suggesting that the parents desires should be respected by the government?
Trans kids are a reality.
Nope. The whole “trans” thing is a fraud and kids are being indoctrinated into it. “Trans” is just a fad with kids because of their indoctrination.
“Trans” decision is not something a child has an ability to decide on and no minor (under 18) should have a decision made for them but perverted adults.
There is no such thing as “mental health” — the mind is intangible and cannot be ill. IF there is an organic issue with the brain that affects the thinking processes, then that organic thing needs to be addressed rather than allowing people to make decisions based on fantasies.
but perverted adults.
Should be "by" perverted adults
Glenn,
What's also being ignored is the increasing number of people who were coerced (as they tell it) into "transitioning" by parents, friends, of various government agents, and are stuck trying to "detransition" because they realized that they'd made a mistake.
There's a reason why we limit children in terms of things they can do/decide at young ages. We won't let a 12 year old drive, but we will let them make this sort of major decision that might permanently alter their body.
If a 21 year old wants to make major alterations to their body, then I don't have a problem with it. If a 12 year old wants to, then it should be the parent's job to be the voice of maturity and rationality to their kid.
The reality is, despite the claim of folx like Dan, that there are young children undergoing irreversible surgery because of how they feel. We don't even know the long term results of some of the "reversible" things being done.
But folx like Dan are going to encourage kids to follow their feelings regardless of the potential for harm.
Craig...
"1. Why limit the question to this one particular subset of medical procedures?"
Because it is the topic of your post? Because you've asked me to stay on topic? Because, why wouldn't I in this contacts?
"2. Are you suggesting that the courts should NOT be intervening in situations where the parents disagree on what is appropriate?"
No.
"3. Why do we not allow children to make decisions about medical decisions by themselves?"
I'm not making that suggestion.
"4. Should parents automatically validate and support every desire expressed by a child?"
Nope.
"5. Are you suggesting that state employees should have no role in making these sorts of decisions/"
Yes. Or at least a very minor one. The deciders should be, the family, the person involved, their medical support, their mental health support. The state might reasonably get involved if there were conflicts of opinions between these deciders perindeed deciders. Otherwise, they should stay out of it.
Now I've answered 5 of your questions that are rather obvious questions with rather obvious answers. Why don't you answer mine?
Why do you try so hard to avoid answering reasonable questions?
Who do YOU think should be making these decisions?
Also, you say... "There are problems with your question."
But that's just an empty claim. Why? What's the problem with the questions I've asked? It sounds like you're suggesting that sometimes governments should decide important decisions for families and individuals but you will in the family. That's sort of a scary thought. Why not clarify who you think should be deciding? It's an important question, and reasonable, given your comments.
Also, what harm do you think will come if, for instance, a five year old who was born with a penis says they would like to wear a dress or a skirt? It's just clothes. Do you think that's going to harm them somehow? How?
And who do you think should make that call? The parent, in conjunction with the child? The school? The department store? Is social worker with the state?
Craig... "folx like Dan are going to encourage kids to follow their feelings regardless of the potential for harm."
Another stupidly false claim. If a child wants to practice jumping off the roof, I don't think a parent should go along with that... if a child wants to mock or beat up another child who is wearing a dress to school, I don't go along with that. The question is, who gets to decide what's going to cause harm? You? The governor? Some preacher somewhere?
Also, I think you're missing the point. There is data out there that shows if a child recognizes that in their brain they are a female even though they were born with a penis, and we denigrate and demonize that and deny them the opportunity to make choices for themselves, that that has some harm associated with it. We also see that, I believe, in some extreme minority of cases where someone has transitioned, they've grown to change their mind And want to transition back. This is all data that needs to be taken into account. It sounds like you want to ignore one set of data -the data that shows harm done by repressing transgender realities - and only look at other potential harms that you think may happen. I say we should be looking at all the data and that the individuals involved, along with their allies and informed experts, should be the ones to make those calls.
You?
a child recognizes that in their brain they are a female even though they were born with a penis
A child doe NOT recognize that they are anything other that what they are born as. They have to be indoctrinated to believe they are something different.
Children dressing up while playing, dressing in their opposite sex sibling, are not thinking they are that opposite sex, rather they are just play-acting. which in reality is what every so-called "transgender" is doing because NO ONE can change what sex they were born as.
"Because it is the topic of your post? Because you've asked me to stay on topic? Because, why wouldn't I in this contacts?"
Given your inability to stay on topic, this is quite humorous. Of course, the answer is because children aren't able to make informed consent to any medical procedure and the parents have always filled that role. Why would this one set of medical procedures be handled differently than any other elective procedure?
"I'm not making that suggestion."
Literally not an answer to the question asked.
"Now I've answered 5 of your questions that are rather obvious questions with rather obvious answers. Why don't you answer mine?"
You actually answered 4, and I did. I guess the fact that you answered 4 is pretty good for you.
"Why do you try so hard to avoid answering reasonable questions?"
I don't. I do try to push back against questions that have problems.
"Who do YOU think should be making these decisions?"
One more time. The parents.
So if the parents and their expert support think it's OK for Janey to wear a dress to school, you're fine with that and you support that? You don't want the state to be involved to stop it?
If so, you and I agree. Marshal and Glenn appear to be more fascist than that. will you be calling them out on that?
"Why? What's the problem with the questions I've asked?"
1. It's too broad and non specific.
2. It implies that someone other than the parents should be making decisions for children. Or at least leaves open the possibility that an answer besides the parents is appropriate.
"It sounds like you're suggesting that sometimes governments should decide important decisions for families and individuals but you will in the family."
If it "sounds like" that to you, then you're incapable of understanding the English language in any meaningful way. I guess pointing out the reality that there are agents of the state actively engaging in making these sorts of decisions without or against parental input probably escaped your notice.
"Why not clarify who you think should be deciding?"
Already have, quite clearly when I answered your question in my comment of 8:50 AM this morning.
"Also, what harm do you think will come if, for instance, a five year old who was born with a penis says they would like to wear a dress or a skirt?"
Since the topic of the post is NOT 5 year olds wearing skirts, but children having elective surgery, I'm not sure what (beyond obfuscation) this idiotic question accomplishes. Are you suggesting that because a 5 year old boy wants to "wear a skirt" that they should be presumed to be transgender, and engage in further steps to transition? Should the penis be removed?
"Do you think that's going to harm them somehow? How?"
Again, pointless/obfuscatory question that isn't related to the topic of the post.
"And who do you think should make that call? The parent, in conjunction with the child? The school? The department store? Is social worker with the state?"
The parent(s). I'm sorry that simple direct answers are so confusing for you.
"Another stupidly false claim."
Poorly expressed and overly broad, perhaps, but that's about it.
Should have said that there are plenty of folx like Dan who will encourage kids to follow their feelings when it comes to certain things, regardless of the harm caused.
"The question is, who gets to decide what's going to cause harm? You? The governor? Some preacher somewhere?"
Good question. You seem very certain that you know what "harm" is, so are you suggesting yourself?
In this specific instance, I'd say that irreversible (or potentially irreversible) medical procedures would fall into the harmful or potentially harmful category. Especially when performed on children who are developmentally unable to realistically assess the risks and potential rewards of these sorts of actions.
"There is data out there that shows if a child recognizes that in their brain they are a female even though they were born with a penis, and we denigrate and demonize that and deny them the opportunity to make choices for themselves, that that has some harm associated with it."
1. In the absence of any actual data being cited, I see no reason to simply accept your word that such "data" exists and that such "data" is actually True.
2. I'm not sure that preventing a minor child from deciding to engage in irreversible or potentially irreversible elective surgery or medical procedures, is actually "denigrating and demonizing".
3. I'm seeing an increasing number of people who regret the harm they've done themselves by engaging in irreversible alterations before they were old enough to fully understand their choices.
You seem to be suggesting that these children be able to "make choices for themselves"
with little or no regard to their age, maturity level, or legal ability to consent to surgery.
"We also see that, I believe, in some extreme minority of cases where someone has transitioned, they've grown to change their mind And want to transition back. This is all data that needs to be taken into account."
How magnanimous of you. That you're willing to allow these horror stories to be "taken into account". How generous.
"It sounds like you want to ignore one set of data -the data that shows harm done by repressing transgender realities - and only look at other potential harms that you think may happen."
Nope, I'm not suggesting that at all.
"I say we should be looking at all the data and that the individuals involved, along with their allies and informed experts, should be the ones to make those calls."
How interesting, you left their parents totally out of those who should "make those calls".
Because 12 year olds are totally competent to make these sorts of decisions in a rational, informed, manner.
Craig... "Should have said that there are plenty of folx like Dan who will encourage kids to follow their feelings when it comes to certain things, regardless of the harm caused."
You really should stop while you're behind. Another stupidly false claim. Why do you keep trying when you fail almost every time? Why don't you ask me what my position is instead of falsely stating it and getting it wrong over and over and over and over?
Or why don't you save yourself sometime. Just think to yourself, "I think Dan's position is THIS," then write down whatever the opposite of THIS is.
I've never encouraged people to do something regardless of what harm there might be. I always advocate weighing the known data and making the best, most informed opinion. What about this what about this is problematic?
Craig... "I'd say that irreversible (or potentially irreversible) medical procedures would fall into the harmful or potentially harmful category..."
Potentially, yes. Any surgery should be taken seriously. At the same time, the mental health effects effects of repressing one's innate gender are also a threat of real harm.
Do you recognize that reality? That part's not debatable.
And you need to be clear that, for most children, any potential surgeries are much closer to their 18th birthday and beyond. You recognize, I hope, that no one's talking about doing a boob job on a 5 year old girl.
Craig... "1. It's too broad and non specific."
? You almost certainly can't support that period you wrote some things that made it sound like you didn't want the family to be deciding. I asked the reasonably broad question then who should be deciding? It is a broad question chicken cause we're talking about a broad principle.. How should I have asked it?
The lengths you'll go through just to refuse to admit you wrong.
"2. It implies that someone other than the parents should be making decisions for children. Or at least leaves open the possibility that an answer besides the parents is appropriate."
But that's what I wanted to know. There is no implication. YOUR POST seems to be implying that.. Thequestion is to find out the answer to that question. I'm not implying that someone besides parents and the individualinvolved... I'm asking who YOU think should be making such decisions.
Given the reality that some conservatives like Glenn and Marshal appear to be saying the parents should not be allowed to make that decision along withthe child, it's a reasonable question. Do you understand that?
"Why do you keep trying when you fail almost every time?"
I'm sorry, are you suggesting that there are no "folx like" you who are supportive children undergoing these sorts of elective procedures? Are you suggesting that you speak for all "folx like you on this topic?
"Why don't you ask me what my position is instead of falsely stating it and getting it wrong over and over and over and over?"
1. Because you've been reasonably clear so far.
2. By all means, enlighten me on your position on this topic.
3. Why not simply detail your position clearly and unequivocally without being asked?
"Do you recognize that reality? That part's not debatable."
Well, if you simply announce that something is "reality" and "not debatable" that settles it for all times, doesn't it?
The problem is that the experiences of actual children who've been pressured to transition and now realize how wrong they were would seem to be debating your claims about reality.
Dan's apparent position- "This is all data that needs to be taken into account. It sounds like you want to ignore one set of data -the data that shows harm done by repressing transgender realities - and only look at other potential harms that you think may happen. I say we should be looking at all the data and that the individuals involved, along with their allies and informed experts, should be the ones to make those calls."
Craig's position- No children should engage in irreversible or potentially irreversible elective medical procedures until they are legally able to consent to the procedure. Parents are the people responsible for their children while they are minors. Agents of the state should not be circumventing the responsibility of the parents for their children.
See, you're making two different claims there.
1. No children should engage in irreversible Elective medical procedures. That SOUNDS like you think that if a 17 year old wants a mastectomy so their body more look like the male they know themselves to be, you're opposed to it.
But then you also say
2. the parents are the ones responsible.
So, IF the parents are responsible and they agree to such a procedure, are you OK with that? Or do you think the state should be involved?
Craig... "1. Because you've been reasonably clear so far.
2. By all means, enlighten me on your position on this topic.
3. Why not simply detail your position clearly and unequivocally without being asked?"
I have been clear. And yet you keep misunderstanding and mis-stating what I'm saying.
Decisions about gender should be made by the person in question, their family, and their experts. Not the state. I've been quite clear.
On questions where one parent disagrees with the other parent and the child, it certainly gets more complex. However, I lean towards the parent who is agreeing with the child.
It also depends on age. If a 5 year old child who was born with a penis wants to start wearing a dress to school or church, why not? What's the harm?
On the other hand, if a 5 year old who was born with a penis wants to have it cut off, probably not.
And when the child is a 17 year old who's been Considering this and counseling about this for years? That's a different situation.
In other words, it always depends on the situation. Because of course it does.
The point in all this is a rational and calm discussion and series of discussions with everyone involved in the family.
Trust me, no one rushes into this. I'm relatively certain it's almost always a series of extended discussions and considerations over time.
My main point is that the state has no role in getting involved and making decisions for the parents and the person involved.
It is not at all uncommon that government removes children from parents who fail in their parental responsibilities. We see it far too often in fact, given the sad reality of bad parents.
In this case, for any parent to proceed with any unproven medical alteration to appease the delusion of their child is abuse. The first step...puberty blockers...have not been shown to be safe when used for purposes other than to correct a distinct condition of premature puberty. The long term effects on a normally developing child is what is in question. Without that being determined, taking such a risk...particularly when it rarely ends there...is abusive. The delusion doesn't lead to death, as will a cancer which makes risk worth taking. The potential for harm to the child justifies government intervention in the same way leaving a child with its drug addicted parents justifies it. It's to protect the child.
The correct course of action is to help the child cope with the delusion until the child can come to its senses, or until the child is a legal adult. The "protocol" is to monitor the child to see if the child consistently insists it is of the other sex. This might make sense if all such kids were carbon copies. Unfortunately, to the dismay of lefties who abhor the notion, kids are individuals. One kid might snap out if it in a week. Another might indulge the delusion for a few years. Without parental guidance, it might not end until it's too late. The "experts" don't care, because they're activists for the cause.
And of course, those who object to prohibiting these methods prior to legal adulthood make all manner of irrational claims, such as harm from NOT appeasing the delusion. Nonsense. Petulance is not a sign of anything more than a child throwing tantrums from not getting their way. But aside from that, enablers would not agree to these protocols if the delusion was believing one's self to be an animal, or an amputee or a historical figure. The course of action would be to help the kid accept who he is. But not with THIS delusion. No. To deny this delusion is a threat to the LGBT crowd...a crowd whose every demand and whine is no more scientifically justified than is any other delusion. And when it comes to kids, it's absolute abuse and allowing it to go on is contemptible.
"1. No children should engage in irreversible Elective medical procedures. That SOUNDS like you think that if a 17 year old wants a mastectomy so their body more look like the male they know themselves to be, you're opposed to it."
Yes, it's two separated but related claims. I was unaware that you had limited the number of claims that could be made. In this case, I'm making the claim that we (as a legal reality) don't allow minor children to make certain decisions or enter into binding contracts. As usual, I don't care what things "sound like" to you. I understand that minor children are not mature (mentally developed/whatever term you prefer) for a reason, and I agree with the limits that have governed the restrictions placed on minor children.
But then you also say
"2. the parents are the ones responsible."
Yes, the reality is that parents are responsible for making decisions for their minor children in various realms.
In reality, those two are simply two sides of the same coin.
"So, IF the parents are responsible and they agree to such a procedure, are you OK with that? Or do you think the state should be involved?"
Do I think that parents should force their children to engage in irreversible/likely irreversible medical procedures when they are minors, no. Do I think that the parents have the legal standing to do so, yes. Do I think that agents of the state should actively work to circumvent the rights and responsibilities of parents when it comes to irreversible/likely irreversible, elective medical procedures. no.
"2. By all means, enlighten me on your position on this topic."
Do you mean like me posting a quote of your actual words, outlining your actual position? If so, then done.
"3. Why not simply detail your position clearly and unequivocally without being asked?"
1. If you won't then why would you demand that I do what you won't?
2. I've already done so.
"Decisions about gender should be made by the person in question, their family, and their experts. Not the state. I've been quite clear."
Then do you object/condemn teachers/school counselors who actively engage in thwarting the will of the parents? If so, then let's hear clear, unequivocal condemnation.
"It also depends on age. If a 5 year old child who was born with a penis wants to start wearing a dress to school or church, why not? What's the harm?."
Because repeating this nonsense, which I've already addressed somehow gives you more credibility, right?
"On the other hand, if a 5 year old who was born with a penis wants to have it cut off, probably not."
Interesting that you are clear that you believe that there are circumstances where it would be appropriate to electively remove the functional penis of a 5 year old.
"And when the child is a 17 year old who's been Considering this and counseling about this for years? That's a different situation."
What a genius you are. A regular rocket surgeon. You correctly identified a "different" situation.
Going along with my principle that minor children should not undergo irreversible, elective surgery, I'd go with it's the parent's call until majority.
This does raise in interesting question. If the now 18 year old wants to exercise their majority and make their own decisions regarding irreversible, elective surgery, why they expect their parents to pay for the surgery? Why wouldn't this independent adult be responsible for their own decisions?
"Trust me, no one rushes into this. I'm relatively certain..."
That's quite a definitive claim with absolutely zero evidence for such an audacious claim. But as long as you're "relatively certain", then clearly that's proof enough that you're 100% accurate.
"My main point is that the state has no role in getting involved and making decisions for the parents and the person involved."
Yet various representatives of the state are doing so.
Marshal and Glenn appear to be more fascist
Proving Trabue has no idea what the word "fascist" means. His ignorance is on such display in these comments!
Dan's grasp of what many things mean has been in doubt for a while.
"And you need to be clear that, for most children, any potential surgeries are much closer to their 18th birthday and beyond. You recognize, I hope, that no one's talking about doing a boob job on a 5 year old girl."
No, you need to be clear, the study I linked to contradicts your claim.
"You almost certainly can't support that period you wrote some things that made it sound like you didn't want the family to be deciding. I asked the reasonably broad question then who should be deciding? It is a broad question chicken cause we're talking about a broad principle.. How should I have asked it?"
Given the fact that I've answered your question multiple times, and that you haven't provide any evidence (actual quotes) I'm forced to conclude that you're being willfully obtuse.
"But that's what I wanted to know. There is no implication. YOUR POST seems to be implying that.. Thequestion is to find out the answer to that question."
Again, with the vague and unspecific claims. It'd be so easy to simply provide actual evidence (like a quote or two), but you won't, don't, or can't.
"I'm not implying that someone besides parents and the individualinvolved... I'm asking who YOU think should be making such decisions."
Really, are you saying that you condemn any government representative that is engaged in working against the desire of parents to make medical decisions for their minor children? That you condemn making a parent pay for these sorts of elective surgical procedures against that parent's will?
"Given the reality that some conservatives like Glenn and Marshal appear to be saying the parents should not be allowed to make that decision along withthe child, it's a reasonable question. Do you understand that?"
What's to understand, beyond you keep making these idiotic claims without any proof. If only there were a way to document what people have said....
Craig... "Do I think that parents should force their children to engage in irreversible/likely irreversible medical procedures when they are minors, no."
Of course, no one is doing that, so it's sort of a moot point, but strangely "fearmongering" in nature. As if there are adults out there saying to 16 year old boys, "You HAVE to get your penis removed!"
It's just not happening. Of course.
Craig...
"are you saying that you condemn any government representative that is engaged in working against the desire of parents to make medical decisions for their minor children?"
Certainly in most instances. IF the parents are somehow acting to cause harm to their child and against that child's will, there might be some cases where it becomes necessary.
For instance, if a 12 year old child were pregnant and medical experts were saying it wasn't safe for that child to have that baby and an abortion is in order, and IF the parents were insisting - against the medical advice for keeping that child safe - to NOT have an abortion, then the state might need to be involved.
But in cases of two parents supporting a child who is transgender and in coordination and consultation with experts on the matter, no, the gov't has no business getting involved.
Do you agree in those two specific examples?
Craig...
"That you condemn making a parent pay for these sorts of elective surgical procedures against that parent's will?"
I don't know how I feel about that. I suppose you're speaking about a case where the child and one parent (and their experts) want to transition and the other parent is opposed? I think it might depend on the scenario and details.
Craig... "What's to understand, beyond you keep making these idiotic claims without any proof. If only there were a way to document what people have said...."
Well, that's the problem with you all and your vague comments and refusal to answer questions directly... It SOUNDS like to me that Marshal has said he'd criminalize parents supporting their children to transition and it SOUNDS like Glenn agrees, but you can try to get straight answers from them if you want.
Good luck.
Supposing they DO tell you they'd like to criminalize parents being supportive of their transgender children, would you tell them they're wrong... that this is a bad idea? That indeed, it IS rather fascist for the state to step in and tell parents how to take care of and support their transgender child?
Craig... "Yes, the reality is that parents are responsible for making decisions for their minor children in various realms."
I would like to clarify that it is certainly the legal responsibility of the parents to make the final call on medical decisions for their underage children
AND that children's brains don't stop developing fully until closer to 25
But, they are at least semi-adult and semi-rational in their later teen years and early 20s.
Given that, I think medical, mental health and parenting experts would say that parents should consider the opinions of good-thinking, relatively rational older teenagers when dealing with any serious medical decisions that impact their life. To do otherwise would be bad parenting. And "consider the opinion" of the teenager in question doesn't necessarily mean to go along with their "vote," but just to weigh it and the child in question.
Craig... " the study I linked to contradicts your claim. "
No. It doesn't. Read for understanding.
Nothing in that story mentions operations on prepubescent children. The participants in surgeries mentioned appear to be at least 13 and they all appeared to have been closer to 16 and over.
"Because pubertal development of people who are assigned female at birth may begin as early as 8 or 9 years of age, completion of puberty is plausible even as young as 12 years."
They mention COMPLETING PUBERTY as young as 12, but no mention of reconstructive surgery for 5 year old children.
Also, you should note that, in your source,
"National guidelines regarding surgical interventions for minors are outlined in the World Professional Association for Transgender Health Standards of Care, version 7. These guidelines recommend that adolescents defer genital surgery until the age of consent, but acknowledge that individual minors might be candidates for chest reconstruction. Despite this acknowledgment, many insurance plans continue to impose a mandatory age requirement of 18 years for chest surgery..."
So again, once again, No. The link you provided does NOT contradict my claim.
Also, I note these results...
"All postsurgical participants (68 of 68; 100%) affirmed the statement, “It was a good decision to undergo chest reconstruction.” Sixty-seven of 68 postsurgical respondents reported no regret about undergoing the procedure. Only 1 participant (who was older than 18 years at the time of surgery) reported experiencing regret “sometimes.”
These young adults - some who were minors when the surgery was performed - have all reported a positive impact of their decision. This report, then, seems to affirm that the treatment was worth it 100% of the time for at least this study group. Do you view that to be good news?
As there's no scientific basis for the transgender narrative, no parent is responsible who enables their child's delusion in such manner which leads to these many protocols which are neither proven safe nor are irreversible if the child realizes what a mistake it all was. The "experts"...whom one would guess have some degree of intelligence, wisdom and perhaps "expertise", should be focusing their "expertise" on helping the minor cope with their delusional self-perception until the child at least reaches legal age. This should be enforced through governmental means for the sake of the child's best interest...something about which "progressives" care not a bit.
Children live with all manner of disappointments related to their immature age. They need to live with this one as being among the most important given the long lasting ramifications "progressives" pretend are the result of religious fanatics, rather than the appeasing of the delusion.
Dan wonders "where's the harm?" should a 5 yr old boy be allowed to wear a dress. An actual Christian doesn't ask a dumbass question like this given Scriptures clear teaching against cross dressing. Thus, the harm at its very minimum, yet most long lasting, is the spiritual harm. This is something about which "progressive" "Christians" don't much care and thus don't care to consider.
There is also the harm inherent in enabling the irrational self-perception. Sure...the kid might whine if the desire to cross dress is denied. So what? It's likely not the first or only denial the kid endures. He'll get over it.
"SOUNDS like to me that Marshal has said he'd criminalize parents supporting their children to transition and it SOUNDS like Glenn"
Maybe the problem is that you keep responding as if what "sounds like" something to you with your biases and prejudices is actually reality.
"Supposing they DO tell you"
Why would I suppose anything? How does it help to suppose that your hunches about what they might mean are correct? How does trading on supposition rather than reality help anything?
It seems as though you are supporting irreversible medical procedures on children who've reached puberty, even if they're as young as twelve.
Are you suggesting puberty instead of majority as the standard?
Craig... "It seems as though you are supporting irreversible medical procedures on children who've reached puberty, even if they're as young as twelve."
I have been abundantly clear: I support the INDIVIDUALS and FAMILIES making such decisions. Not some conservative preacher. Not you. Not the state. I support INDIVIDUALS and THEIR FAMILIES having that liberty, as I believe you have affirmed you do, as well. So it appears we agree on that much, while it appears Marshal and Glenn do not.
Again, if you all would ANSWER QUESTIONS directly and without the vague blandness that you tend to answer them, it would be easier to know.
Yes, you are abundantly clear that you support irreversible medical procedures on children as young as twelve, as long as you approve of who decides.
All the rest about "conservative preachers" and the other bullshit is just a smoke screen. You support removing perfectly functioning organs from minor children. All the rest is just obfuscation to mask how horrible that sounds.
I guess you're fine with Muslim parents deciding to remove some extra parts from their daughters as well.
The more you spout this "ANSWER QUESTIONS" without actually giving examples of what these questions are, the more I'm convinced that it's just a reflex to give yourself cover.
I'm one finite man, I only have a finite amount of time, I can only address a finite amount of stuff...
Craig... "you are abundantly clear that you support irreversible medical procedures on children as young as twelve, as long as you approve of who decides."
NOT what I said. I said I support such decisions being made by the individual, the parents and their experts. You said you agree earlier. Do you agree???
(There's an example of a clarifying question you could answer to be clear. Earlier it sounded like/you said you agreed that it's the family who should make such calls... but now you keep framing it in such a way as to suggest you don't agree. Feel free to clarify.
Craig... "I guess you're fine with Muslim parents deciding to remove some extra parts from their daughters as well."
No. Of course not.
Why?
1. Doesn't have the support of the individual (at least, often)
2. Doesn't have the support of medical experts.
3. It's being done for irrational religious reasons, not scientific ones.
4. According to WHO, there are "NO HEALTH BENEFITS, ONLY HARM."
See the difference?
Craig...
"Maybe the problem is that you keep responding as if what "sounds like" something to you with your biases and prejudices is actually reality."
Here's the conversation at Marshal's where he says he wants the government to decide. Not the parents, not the individual or their experts. Read this and tell me it DOESN'T sound like Marshal would take the choice away from families.
Marshal... "I support government prohibiting abusive procedures which do little more than pushing kids toward perversion and immorality,"
Dan...
"And who gets to decide?"
Marshal...
"not those like you! You're the people causing all the harm America now suffers..."
Dan...
"THEN WHO?"
Marshal...
"Who decides our policies now, Dan? Our elected representatives if we're lucky. But we hope our reps act on sound science, not the pseudo-science you promote as justification for altering our way of life on behalf of a tiny minority of people whose urges and desires are the result of dysfunction...as your own links attest."
******
I'm reading what you all are saying and trying to understand what you're collectively meaning. This has nothing to do with my biases and everything to do with Marshal's words. Do you read that to mean the parents/families in question get to decide?
Dan likes to pose questions after he realizes his initial premise is crap. Note his nonsense at his blog on the myth of "white privilege". "Smoke screen" is an apt description of Dan's "questions".
As stated before, the state often intercedes in "private family matters" for the sake of the safety of the children. As there is no science behind the fantasy of "transgenderism", then for any adult...parents, doctors, "psychologists", teachers...aiding and abetting the child in the child's delusions about "gender identity" is abusive and compels the state to act in the child's best interest. I'll say it again, there is no harm done to the child outside of petulant whining related to denying the child its delusions. The harm is already present in the delusion of the child. If the child is not properly counseled in how to cope with the delusion...or more precisely the reality the child is avoiding...there is absolute physical harm which will befall the child.
This is reality...or it is until someone like Dan can produce the definitive evidence that enabling the delusion carries no harm for the child (or even the adults who go through with this madness).
I wonder if Dan is keen on allowing parents the full authority to determine which drugs can be administered to their children. Covid "vaccines" come to mind. Masking is another item on the list of things parents are denied their parental authority in favor of the state making the call. How about ANY vaccines (and here I refer to actual vaccines)?
"I support the INDIVIDUALS and FAMILIES making such decisions."
Those are your exact words. Given the reality that "such decisions" are increasingly including irreversible procedures, it appears as though my summary was more correct than you'd like to admit.
Craig... "appears as though my summary was more correct than you'd like to admit."
???
There's nothing to "admit."
I have been abundantly clear: I support the INDIVIDUALS and FAMILIES making such decisions.
And I believe you said you agree. Is that correct?
Why is communication so very, very difficult for you?
Why is answering clear reasonable direct questions so very hard for you?
"Do you read that to mean the parents/families in question get to decide?"
One should read it as it is clearly presented: a response to questioning government intervention in the affairs of the family. Government already does step in when children are at risk. Is this not true, Dan? If it is, then there is no reason to suggest it is automatically wrong to do so with this issue, if it is seen as preventing harm to children, which it does. Just because you've bought into the LGBT agenda narrative doesn't mean rational people have. Gov. Abbott rightly recognizes the harm to minors when adults, including their parents, enable the delusion suffered by minors with regard "gender identity". There's no proven argument for enabling that delusion, and plenty which argues against doing so. To borrow from your own comments, it:
1. Doesn't have the support of the individual (as minors cannot give legal consent...because they're freakin' minors)*
2. Doesn't have the support of medical experts.
3. It's being done for irrational political/anti-culture reasons, not scientific ones.
4. According to the many medical and psychological professionals I've presented, there are "NO HEALTH BENEFITS, ONLY HARM."
See the similarity with muslim genital mutilation?
*(Dan is clearly opposed to minors supporting the notion of sex with adults supported by the same governmental prohibitions regarding age of consent which he ignores here in deference to the disordered LGBT agenda.)
Craig...
"Given the reality that "such decisions" are increasingly including irreversible procedures, it appears as though my summary was more correct than you'd like to admit."
To clarify what I think should be obvious:
I support families who have transgender kids to SUPPORT those kids and make decisions, in consultation with their experts giving them advice. That means that they may decide to wear dresses and grow their hair out (if they're a girl/woman) and the parents support them (as opposed to mocking or threatening or disowning them or kicking or them out - which happens SO often). That is cool with me.
And if they decide, all together, that it's best not to do any medical interventions until they're 18, I support them making THAT decision (and indeed, it's what many trans folks and allies who are experts in the field suggest).
And if they decide to proceed with some medical interventions, I support them doing that.
I support them making whatever decisions they want to make within their family (short of parents being cruel to them - that I stand strongly against).
And you know why? IT'S NOT MY BUSINESS. IT'S NOT YOUR BUSINESS.
Now, do you agree with all of that?
Or do you support the parents and the individual making such decisions ONLY if they make what you think are the "right" ones according to you?
Would you join with Marshal and the Nazis in Texas in trying to criminalize supporting transgender children?
Which side are you on, boy?
"And I believe you said you agree. Is that correct?"
Yes
"Why is communication so very, very difficult for you?"
Because you're on the other end of the conversation. You force me to be specific, and to use my finite resources to try to focus on the topics of posts.
"Why is answering clear reasonable direct questions so very hard for you?"
It's not. I do it regularly.
How delightfully convoluted. In essence you're saying that you support parents making virtually ANY choice regarding their children and irreversible medical procedures UNLESS it doesn't meet your definition of proper motivation.
"I support families who have transgender kids to SUPPORT those kids and make decisions, in consultation with their experts giving them advice."
So if a family, in consultation with their "experts" giving them advice to do so, subject their kid to the amputation of a perfectly functioning leg because the child "identifies" as an amputee, you're good with that. You support such medical intervention with no input of government child protective services.
"I support them making whatever decisions they want to make within their family (short of parents being cruel to them - that I stand strongly against)."
So the question is only a matter of what YOU perceive to be cruelty according to agenda you favor. Rational people see you sex-change notions as absolutely cruel given the various documented negative outcomes far more common than your LGBT activists have the honesty and moral character to admit.
"And you know why? IT'S NOT MY BUSINESS. IT'S NOT YOUR BUSINESS."
The welfare of minor children is the business of society and society's government. Again, government has a role to play in protecting children from their goofy parents. Too bad they didn't step in in your case.
"Or do you support the parents and the individual making such decisions ONLY if they make what you think are the "right" ones according to you?"
"Right" decisions based on facts, not pro-LGBT lies and BS. There's no "right" decision which enables "gender identity" delusions of a minor. And I say this even if a parent allows their 7 yr old boy to put on a dress just to stop the whining for an hour. Responsible, truly loving parents do not appease every desire of their child, even if the kid "Really, really, really" believes himself to be a girl, or a goat, or a historic figure or an amputee...or anything which clearly, factually isn't true.
"Would you join with Marshal and the Nazis in Texas in trying to criminalize supporting transgender children?"
That's a typical lefty perversion of reality...in your case, just another intentional lie. That's not reflective of the purpose and intention of the Texas proposal. Supporting a deluded child does not include appeasing and enabling the delusion in a manner which will more than likely NOT help with the psychological problems manifested by the delusion. All YOU'RE doing is supporting the perverse LGBT agenda, because you're all about perversion and immorality above common sense, logic and science....boy.
No. Not "any decisions." They shouldn't do harm to their child. I've been quite clear on that.
But yes. You and I agree that families who decide to wait or to pursue medical intervention for their transgender child... that this is okay and as it should be.
Right?
And we both disagree with Marshal who thinks the state should make that call. Right?
It's always funny when you have to "mis quote" me in order to gin up your faux outrage.
"And you know why? IT'S NOT MY BUSINESS. IT'S NOT YOUR BUSINESS."
I'm so relieved. I've never suggested anything of the sort. I do, however, have immense empathy for the increasingly vocal young men and women who were "influenced" by their parents/government representatives into undergoing major surgery and who are unable to get back to where they started. Maybe if you read some of the horror stories, you'd be more skeptical.
"Now, do you agree with all of that?"
With all of what? I agree that you "mis quoted" me, and that you seem to think I'm suggesting that I have some sort of control of others, but those two things are bullshit.
"Or do you support the parents and the individual making such decisions ONLY if they make what you think are the "right" ones according to you?"
1. I'm always going to be more supportive of people who err on the side of caution/prudence/not engaging in irreversible procedures on minor children. However, I fully support the principle that parents are responsible for their children while they are minors, and that some parents are going to make choices I disagree with. The difference is that I see no reason to demonize or hurl vitriol at those I disagree with. I'm always going to advocate for the material/biological over the immaterial/psychological when it comes to minor children. I realize that when a 5 year old says that they're a dinosaur, that my response is not to surgically shorten their arms, tattoo them green, surgically change their jawline and sharpen their teeth. So, would I support a ban on these sorts of elective surgeries for minors, sure. Would I unilaterally impose one, no.
"Would you join with Marshal and the Nazis in Texas in trying to criminalize supporting transgender children?"
What NAZI's in Texas? Which specific Texans are NAZI's?
I guess that Godwin's Law comes into play about now.
Which side are you on, boy?
Craig...
"What NAZI's in Texas? Which specific Texans are NAZI's?"
The Texas GOP governor and AG have criminalized parents of transgender children supporting their children in the way they deem best.
Note: it's NOT a crime to support your transgender child with medical help, but the GOP there has unilaterally named that child abuse and is requiring teachers and others to turn in parents they suspect of this made up "crime."
From Reuters...
"Paxton declared the state free to enforce Abbott's policy, which required the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) to investigate any reported instances of "gender-transitioning procedures" performed on minors and classified those procedures as "child abuse under existing Texas law."
It also required doctors, nurses and teachers to report such treatments or face criminal penalties. The DFPS acknowledged last week that it had opened nine child welfare inquiries under Abbott's policy."
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/texas-court-reinstates-injunction-blocking-investigations-transgender-kids-2022-03-22/
+++++
Do you see how chilling that is? Do you understand why transgender children and their parents and allies are living in fear?
If not, why not?
Fear of what, Dan? Fear of keeping minors safe from the consequences of their own delusions? Even the first steps of "support" you'd enable...allowing small children to live as members of the opposite sex...have detrimental effects. This is true of letting any small child have their way when what they want is as nonsensical and irrational as insisting they're not the sex their biology clearly proves they are. And while I doubt the righteous Texas law covers something like that, the next step...puberty blockers for normally developing children...is not backed by science as safe. But you advocates of perversion and disorder care far more for the agenda than you do the welfare of kids...or even adults.
Worse is your labeling those who have real concern for kids as "nazis" given your truly nazi-like disregard for people you've decided aren't people because they are still in the womb. This is some vile, contemtible, worldclass hypocrisy. You mock God by calling yourself "Christian".
I'm sorry, I'm confused. You claimed that there were "NAZI's" in Texas, I thought you would be able to back up your claim.
I guess you really meant that you don't like a particular bill that was passed there. You do realize that the term "NAZI" actually has a meaning, don't you? You do realize that slinging around inaccurate terms like "NAZI" doesn't help your cause, don't you? You do realize that, given your false characterization of the FL bill, that I have zero reason to believe your characterization of the TX bill, don;t you?
"Gender reassignment" (aside from being a bald-faced lie) is very dangerous, proving again that when done to minor is nothing less than child abuse.
https://patriotpost.us/articles/87177
Glenn, I'd certainly agree that when adults (especially representatives of the government)pressure or encourage minor children to undergo elective, irreversible surgery could be argued to be child abuse. Personally, I find the testimony of those who've been through this to be worthy of empathy. Certainly their testimony is worthy of serious consideration.
Craig... "agree that when adults (especially representatives of the government)pressure or encourage minor children to undergo elective, irreversible surgery could be argued to be child abuse..."
And when adults try to demonize transgender children and their families that could be called child abuse too. It's a stupidly false claim that parents are pressuring their kids to have surgery... don't be a diabolical liar. Stop oppressing the historically oppressed.
Craig, when people in power use that power to try to criminalize normal normal uncriminal behavior, helpful behavior, that's behaving in a fascist manner. Deputizing teachers and others to turn in people who support transgender kids IS precisely fascist. And dangerous. To hell with you and Glenn and people like you who continue to demonize and oppress innocent children and their families and supporters.
Do you acknowledge that it is NOT criminal to support transgender children... including hormone blockers? Get the hell out of people's pants and bedrooms you sick perverts. Mind your own business.
Apparently virtually anything can be called child abuse. Except for MAP's that's not child abuse.
That's quite an impressive way to say, "I'm sorry, there aren't NAZI's in TX".
1. When you say "hormone blockers" do you mean chemical castration?
2. Is chemical castration 100% reversible with zero negative effects if reversed?
By all means, resort to demonization of anyone who disagrees with you, it's refreshing.
Craig... "By all means, resort to demonization of anyone who disagrees with you,"
1. It is YOU and your fellow perverts who are talking about accusing parents of child abuse when they are merely lovingly supporting their transgender child in accordance with expert advice. It's in accordance with expert advice and it is NOT a crime but you deviants are treating it like a crime. THAT is actual demonizing.
2. When I point out the arrogance and harm and deviants of you all doing so, that's not demonizing. You all are in the wrong and I'm just pointing it out.
Educate yourself...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bustle.com/wellness/myths-about-trans-health-care-debunked-by-trans-people-doctors-21749708/amp
More facts to combat ignorance...
https://www.statnews.com/2021/02/26/sen-rand-paul-misunderstands-transgender-medicine-heres-the-truth/comment-page-1/
1. False claim.
2. False claim.
But you expect me to uncritically accept a couple of links you've cherry picked, while dismissing anything that doesn't support your narrative.
If you want to criticize me for opposing irreversible, elective, surgical procedures on minor children, feel free. I'll take heat for thinking that minor children shouldn't be subjected to irreversible surgical procedures while they are still minor children. Further, I'll take heat for opposing agents of the state encouraging, pressuring, or facilitating minor children to engage in these sorts of major decisions without the involvement and agreement of both parents. Finally, I'll gladly go on record as opposing forcing parents to be financially responsible for irreversible, elective. surgeries that they don't agree with.
AT one point in this thread, you claimed to oppose "irreversible", elective, surgeries for minor children, unfortunately you changed you mind.
Craig... "AT one point in this thread, you claimed to oppose "irreversible", elective, surgeries for minor children, unfortunately you changed you mind."
Nope. Just another example of you reading my words and reaching false/wrong conclusions.
And my claims are not false even if you say they are. Facts are facts.
Trabue posts links to "medical" information.
First, psychology isn't a medical field - it is a fraud, better known as psychobabble and invented primarily by sexual perverts.
Second, children NEVER seriously think about wanting to be the opposite sex- they have to be brainwashed into such nonsense. SO the parents and/or school people are telling the children they are the fake "transgender" and that is the reason children should NEVER be treated as if they are really "transgender." It is child abuse to do so and it is child abuse to brainwash them into such ideology.
No one can change their gender; all they can do is make a claim and even mutilate themselves but they will never be the opposite sex and only science-deniers believe otherise.
You called this a lie, but Glenn, Marshal, the governor and AG in Texas are literally saying just that. And you said... "irreversible surgery could be argued to be child abuse..." You all are literally calling supporting trans kids according to their needs and expert advice "child abuse" if it includes medical support.
Your denial is, itself, a false claim.
Craig... "surgeries that they don't agree with."
NO ONE IS SNEAKING UP ON TRANS KIDS AND FORCIBLY operating on them against their will.
Another demonically false claim.
Just stop. Apologize. Keep out of business that has nothing to do with you.
"And when adults try to demonize transgender children and their families that could be called child abuse too."
Evidently, Dan can't distinguish between opposing unproven procedures and treatments with demonizing the mentally disordered kids upon whom adults would advocate those options. I don't need to read Dan's bullshit links to know they will contain pro-LGBT people pretending these unfortunate people aren't harmed by those options. I don't need to wager that Dan never read any of the links I provided from experts who warn against it all. That's because, as we've established, Dan opposes all evidence which fail to agree with his defense of perversion, disorder and immorality. The worst part is the lie that the suffering of "trans" people is always the result of those who oppose the concept as the lie it is.
Craig... "If you want to criticize me for opposing irreversible, elective, surgical procedures on minor children, feel free."
So... are you saying you DOES think that the parents and individuals should be the ones to decide such decisions? Or that you think the family should decide but you want to be personally unhappy with their decision... but that you'll side with them against conservatives who want to criminalize such decisions?
"Just another example of you reading my words and reaching false/wrong conclusions."
My bad, I guess that you admitting that you do support irreversible, elective, surgical procedures on minor children tells us plenty.
Your claim was that we were "arrogant" and "in the wrong", while neither of those are True statements. You certainly haven't proven that either of those things are objectively True.
"NO ONE IS SNEAKING UP ON TRANS KIDS AND FORCIBLY operating on them against their will."
Strangely enough, you've chosen the straw man logical fallacy as your best option.
"So... are you saying you DOES think that the parents and individuals should be the ones to decide such decisions?"
I know this'll blow your tiny, closed mind. But, I agree that parents are the ONLY people who should be making medical decisions for minor children. I also believe that it is irresponsible for parents to choose to submit minor children to irreversible, elective, unnecessary, surgery while they are minor children. I know it's hard for you grasp, but I can believe strongly in a principle, while not agreeing that that principle is always applied properly. So yes, I "DOES" think that parents (not the state or agents of the state) are the people responsible for decisions made for minor children.
"Or that you think the family should decide but you want to be personally unhappy with their decision... but that you'll side with them against conservatives who want to criminalize such decisions?"
My unhappiness doesn't enter into the discussion. Which renders this entire question moot in my opinion.
FYI, I haven't taken a position on the TX bill because I haven't studied it. My only point about TX was to highlight your false statement about "NAZI's" in TX.
"Craig... "surgeries that they don't agree with."
NO ONE IS SNEAKING UP ON TRANS KIDS AND FORCIBLY operating on them against their will."
Craig was clearly referring to parents whose position is ignored but are mandated to pay for surgeries and treatments of which those parents did not approve. This is the case with fathers no longer married to the mothers but providing child support payments. Such fathers are usually not denied any parental rights at all and thus have an equal say in such matters. Their say is ignored and yet their mandated to pay for that which is unnecessary and not at all beneficial to their child, about whom they care more than the child's mother does.
It would help, Dan, if you freakin' paid attention to what others are saying.
"Craig... "If you want to criticize me for opposing irreversible, elective, surgical procedures on minor children, feel free."
So... are you saying you DOES think that the parents and individuals should be the ones to decide such decisions? Or that you think the family should decide but you want to be personally unhappy with their decision... but that you'll side with them against conservatives who want to criminalize such decisions?"
Another case of your response having no relation to what even your quote of Craig was saying. This is about the worst example of taking something out of context as I've seen, and for you that's saying something. A truer understanding of Craig's position, which was not ambiguous, is that he opposes these treatments for minors. Period. If these treatments are abusive, and clearly Texas believes they are, as do we, then the government is right and just in blocking parents from subjecting their kids to these treatments, despite what perverse LGBT "experts" advise. To that, it's absurd to pretend LGBT psychs would NOT advise parents in that direction. They are not "experts". They are accredited activists abusing their licensed "expertise" to push the agenda.
As to the Texas bill, I think it's pretty clear they regard these procedures and treatments detrimental to minors. How any honest people could possibly argue against it is a clear indication adult preferences take priority over the best interests of the child. Again, there's no harm in guiding minors to wait until they're fully and legally adults before making these drastic changes to their physiology. Only a rank chump for the LGBT cause would dare pretend they're thinking of the child's best interest here. As I said before and is so absolutely the fact of the matter, minors are denied so many things by responsible parents...things they insist they need to have or do for one reason or another, rarely for reasons that are more than petulant appeasement of their immature desires and urges. It's what kids do. None of these treatments have been proven harmless. They should never to administered. Doing so constitutes abuse until it can be prove none of the treatments are harmful at all. Dan doesn't care about such harm, because he's so in the tank for the perv agenda.
Marshal... "I think it's pretty clear they regard these procedures and treatments detrimental to minors."
Whatever they may THINK, that doesn't mean jackshit. It's not against any laws to make medical decisions with and for your children. These conservatives are just unilaterally criminalizing non-criminal behavior... trying to get informants to turn in these non-criminals so they can be penalized for non-crimes.
That is at least comparable to fascism.
Marshal... "Doing so constitutes abuse..."
Says MARSHAL. The question is, why should ANYONE listen to Marshal and his whimsical, unsupported, made up claims over and against expert opinion?
Marshal...
"minors are denied so many things by responsible parents...things they insist they need to have or do for one reason or another, rarely for reasons that are more than petulant appeasement of their immature desires..."
You don't personally have ANY close connections with transgender folks or their families, do you?
Good. Stay away. YOU and bigots like you are dangerous to LGBTQ folk.
"Marshal... "I think it's pretty clear they regard these procedures and treatments detrimental to minors."
Whatever they may THINK, that doesn't mean jackshit."
That might be true if they're just "thinking" it to be true with no evidence in support of it. There's no doubt about the inability of minors to make big decisions. That's why they can't drive, for example, or enter into contracts, such as military service, without parental consent. Yet all of this is based on their expression of what's no more than delusion, and you want to presume they should be enabled by ostensibly mature and responsible adults. You wouldn't buy into that crappy reasoning if they believed with all their hearts they were chihuahuas. You wouldn't support providing medications or surgeries so that they can live that delusion, yet you're all in on this one. Totally moronic and insane to pretend one is not like the other. So that alone...the minor's inability to make such decisions...is reason enough to deny any such treatments or protocols, when there are better ways to help them at least cope with their disappointment until they are of age to handle it all on their own without the need for parental consent.
" It's not against any laws to make medical decisions with and for your children."
Some parents refuse medical attention for their kids due to their religious beliefs. Some states allow religious exemption in such cases. But still governments can and will step in when it is clear the child's life hangs in the balance, especially when there are proven remedies for what ails the kid.
But none of this gender crap is proven, even slightly, as your inability to provide such evidence demonstrates so well. In the meantime, there are proven harms to many of the protocols, such as that of puberty blockers and hormone treatments, as well as by the fact that the removal of body parts is irreversible. And of course there's the unwillingness of the pro-LGBT "experts" to totally eliminate other psychological troubles as being the basis for the delusion in the first place. These things have all been documented and thus, to deny by state law any action which puts such a delusional child at risk is true compassion, even if it turns out the kid will never get over it.
"These conservatives are just unilaterally criminalizing non-criminal behavior... trying to get informants to turn in these non-criminals so they can be penalized for non-crimes."
These conservatives are demonstrating more true compassion for the child than are their parents and certainly more than the activists in psych fields or the agenda pushers. Child abuse is criminal behavior. This is child abuse.
"That is at least comparable to fascism."
Only a God-hating fake Christian from Louisville would make such an egregious claim. Imagine...putting the welfare of minors first is fascism!! Good gosh!!
"Says MARSHAL. The question is, why should ANYONE listen to Marshal and his whimsical, unsupported, made up claims over and against expert opinion?"
Two reasons:
1. The experts I follow aren't sick pervs like those you follow.
2. I care about the safety and welfare of kids, even when the kids themselves don't feel like their welfare is being considered, because they're freakin' kids who don't think. Jackasses selectively set aside reason when their agenda is threatened, and that's the case with your blatherings about LGBT people.
"You don't personally have ANY close connections with transgender folks or their families, do you?"
Honest and intelligent (or even semi-intelligent) people don't need to in order to see the truth. Indeed, being close to such a person or family may actually distort perception in the same way a cop will be barred from an investigation of the murder of a family member.
But unlike morons, I can be objective and still acknowledge the emotional strain for such situations. But that strain is best resolved by bringing the disordered person to accept the reality of which sex the person truly is based on, not just what's between the person's legs, but all other biological facts about what they are.
"Good. Stay away. YOU and bigots like you are dangerous to LGBTQ folk."
But that would only leave assholes like you to enable their self-harming choices like the godless assholes you are. I'm bigoted against godless assholes like you, not the emotionally/mentally disordered. I have great pity and compassion for them. You have devotion to the agenda of lies.
Art,
The problem is that by excluding everyone except those with "expertise" in a very hyper-specific "scientific field" from being able to contribute anything on the topic, it's possible to effectively shut down debate and simply shout "EXPERTS" over and over again.
"The problem is that by excluding everyone except those with "expertise" in a very hyper-specific "scientific field" from being able to contribute anything on the topic, it's possible to effectively shut down debate and simply shout "EXPERTS" over and over again."
BINGO!! And exactly what Dan seeks to do.
Post a Comment